^--^^, 


•^^ 


•Wv-rtrt,,?    "' 


■4P 


^V' 


pCSIf- 


^^^^^ 


Iff. 


\\H' 


i/C 


Tlic    rropcrty 

OF    THE 

TiTiniTrrflim      nnnTnnrnumTnnTi 


lilliiiiii 


BARTON    SQUARE,    SALEM. 


DEPOSITED 


—  IN    TIIK  — 


LIBRARY 


—  OF    THE  — 


ESSEX    INSTITUTE. 


-/i- 


SECOND  LETTER 


10  ita 


REV.  WILLIAM  E.  CHANNING, 


OK  THS  SVBnCT  OS 


UNITARIANISM. 


BY  SAMUEL  WORCESTER,  D.  D. 

PASTOB  OF  THE  TABERXACIE  CHURCH,  fiALEK* 


'Ssr 

BOSTON: 

PRIJOrEB 

ST  SAMUEL 

T.   ARMSTROSO,   WO. 

50, 

coBirarcT,. 

1815. 

♦r 

Ik.' 

5u 

/ 

'ilmt!^'  V  '^ 


JLETTEKc 


REV.   AND   DEAR   SIR, 

A  REASON  of  my  choosing  to  communicate  my  thoughts, 
on  your  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Thacher,  in  a  Letter  ad- 
dressed to  you,  rather  than  present  them  to  the  puhlick  in 
any  other  form,  was,  that  I  bore  towards  you  very  sincere 
affection  and  respect,  and  wislied,  while  performing  a  most 
painful  duty,  assiduously  to  preserve  and  clierish  these  sen- 
timents. In  this  disposition  I  was  careful  that  you  should 
receive  a  copy  of  the  Letter,  accompanied  with  a  note  of  fra- 
ternal courtesy,  before  the  pamphlet  was  published  for  sale. 
Though  I  have  not  met  with  reciprocal  attention  in  either  of 
these  respects,  and  have  only  found,  at  the  Bookseller's, 
^'Remarks"  on  my  Letter,  addressed  "to  the  publick^"  yet, 
animated  still  with  the  same  sentiments  as  at  first,  and  im- 
pressed with  some  new  considerations,  I  choose  to  address 
what  I  have  to  offer  in  reply  to  your  Remarks,  in  a  second 
letter  to  you. 

There  are  cases  in  wiiich  a  fair  statement  of  the  truth, 
even  with  the  kindest  spirit  and  in  the  mildest  terms,  will 
almost  certainly  be  considered  by  those  on  whom  it  bears,  as 
severe  if  not  bitter.  Tliis  infelicity  I  deeply  felt  when  writ- 
ing before,  and  now,  I  can  assure  you,  not  less  deeply  feel. 
I  sincerely  regret  the  necessity  of  exhibiting  truths,  which 
will  be  painful  to  you;  and  it  will  be  my  care  not  to  render 
them  additionally  painful,  by  any  asperity  or  unfairne.-s  in 
the  manner  of  exhibiting  them.  I  find  that  your  Remarks 
are  almost  entirely  personal;  but  in  replying  to  these  "per- 
sonalities," it  will  be  no  object  with  me  to  "defend  myself," 
any  further  than  seems  necessary  for  the  vindication  of  the 
cause  which  I  espouse.  My  earnest  desire  is,  that  attention 
may  be  fixed,  not  upon  me  or  upon  you,  but  upon  the  im- 
portant questions  of  general  concern  in  discussion  bet\\'een 


US.  These  questions  merit  attentionj  and  neither  we,  nor 
otiiers  on  either  side,  ought  to  be  weary  of  attending  to  them, 
until  they  be  well  understood^  and  correctly  decided. 

In  reading  your  Remarks,  my  first  care  was  to  find,  if  you 
had  made  it  appear  that  I  had,  in  any  instance,  misappre- 
hended or  misrepresented  you,  or  done  injustice  to  you  or  to 
others.  In  two  or  three  instances  you  intimate  that  I  have 
misrejjrcsented  you,  and  in  three  or  four  that  I  have  wronged 
you  by  unjust  imputation.     To  these  I  will  briefly  attend. 

I  stated  that  "in  the  terms  of  your  creed,"  as  given  in 
your  Letter,  there  is  "a  great  want  of  clearness  and  preci- 
sion^ great  indistinctness  and  ambiguity."  You  "deny"  the 
correctness  of  this  representation.  I  have  deliberately  re- 
examined tlie  subject,  and  my  views  of  it  remain  unaltered. 
It  was  not  because  your  «*statement,"  or  creed,  did  not  "meet 
and  answer  eyery  question  wliich  may  possibly  be  started  in 
relation  to  your  sentiments,"  that  I  pronounced  it  indistinct 
and  ambiguousj  but  because,  as  I  attempted  to  shew,  it  was 
not  clear  and  unequivocal  upon  the  points  most  directly  in 
question:  and  I  am  perfectly  content  to  submit  it  to  the  judg- 
ment of  candid  men  on  either  side,  who  wiU  attentively  read 
what  you  have  written  and  what  I  have  written,  whether  in 
this  instance  I  am  guilty  of  misrepresentation.  To  them 
also  I  would  refer,  whether,  as  I  have  never  been  charged 
■^ith  concealing  my  sentiments,  I  am  open  to  the  "reproach, 
in  turn,"  of  ambiguity  and  indistinctness,  in  i-egard  to  any 
statements  which  I  made,  or  which  it  was  incumbent  on  me 
to  make. 

You  seem  to  intimate,  p.  8,  that  I  have  misrepresented 
your  account  of  the  manner  in  which  you  and  your  liberal 
bretliren  perform  your  miuisti-y.  This  also  I  have  reexam- 
ined: and  only  desire  that  my  representation  and  argument 
may  be  fairly  compared  with  your  statement,  and  with  the 
general,  notorious,  and  undisputed  facts  to  w  hicli  I  referred. 

You  say,  p.  12,  "I  refer  to  his  insinuation,  that  we  have 
adopted  a  style  of  preaching  opposed  to  that  of  the  apostles, 

BECAUSE  WE  WISH  TO  AVOID  THE  SUFFERINGS  WHICH  THOSE 
HOLY  MEN  ENCOUNTERED,  AND  W  ISH  TO  SECURE  THE  FAVOUR 

o¥  THE  woRiD."--I  did  indeed  suppose  that  "the  favour  oC 


the  world"  which  you  enjoy,  and  of  which  you  speak  in  youv 
Letter  with  so  much  complacency,  was  to  be  attributed,  at 
least  in  part,  to  "a  style  of  preacliing"  widely  different  from 
that  of  the  apostles.  But  that  you  have  adopted  this  style 
for  the  sake  of  such  a  booiif  I  have  no  where  "insinuated." 
Tliroughout  my  Letter,  I  studiously  confined  myself  to  the 
statement  and  suggestion  of  facts  and  principles  in  "lan- 
guage" which  you  acknowledge  to  be  "sufliciently  soft  and 
guarded,"  and  without  arraigning  or  impeaching,  in  a  single 
instance,  intentions  or  motives.  Had  you  duly  attended  to 
this  character  of  my  Letter,  you  would  have  spared  yourself 
the  pain  of  many  of  your  remarks. — And  here,  Sir,  I  enter 
my  protest  against  the  "rule"  of  construction  which  you  have 
professedly  adopted,  and  accoiding  to  which  you  seem  to 
tliink  it  right  to  assume  tbe  "iwj^ressioji,"  which  any  writings 
happen  to  make,  as  the  criterion  of  theii*  real  meaning. 

P.  15,  you  quote  from  my  Letter  the  following  passage: 
*<You  doubtless  will  not  hesitate  to  acknowledge  what  I  have 
certainly  very  great  sorrow  in  stating,  that  the  doctrines  of 
atonement  by  ChrisVs  death,  and  justification  through  faith  in 
his  blood f  as  held  by  orthodox  christians  in  all  ages  of  tlie 
church, — at  once  fall  to  the  ground  before  you."  Upon  this  ^ 
you  exclaim,  "Astonishing  assertion!" — "What!  does  Dr. 
Worcester  really  believe  that  I  will  acknowledge  without 
hesitation^  that  I  reject  these  or  any  other  docti'incs,  as  they 
were  held  by  orthodox  christians  in  the  age  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  or  as  held  by  orthodox  christians  in  any 
age  oftlie  church."  Really,  Sir,  I  did  rely  on  your  candour, 
that  you  would  not  refuse  to  me  the  common  and  establislied 
use  of  the  word  orthodox,  and  that  you  would  not,  by  giv- 
ing to  this  word  a  different  sense,  evade  a  notorious  matter 
of  fact,  and  avoid  an  ingenuous  concession.  Admit  the  word 
orthodox  in  its  general  acceptation,  and  in  the  sense  in  which 
you  must  have  understood  me  to  use  it;  and  I  am  still  confi- 
dent you  will  not  deny  what  I  supposed  you  would  not  hesitate 
to  acknowledge. 

In  this  connexion  you  say,  "Before  leaving  this  head,  I 
would  protest  against  Dr.  Worcester's  habit  of  fastening  on 
his  opponents  the  consequences  which  seem  to  him  to  follow 


from  their  system.  This  practice  is  unfair  and  injurious."  I 
am  not  conscious  of  this  "hahit."  I  do  not  think  it  right  for 
any  one  to  fasten  upon  his  opponents  the  consequences  which 
seem  to  him  to  follow  from  their  system;  when  they  them- 
selves disavow  those  consequences,  or  do  not  generally  admit 
them.  Against  such  a  practice,  I  would  cordially  join  with 
you  in  the  most  eai*nest  and  decided  "protest."  But  the  pres- 
ent is  a  very  different  case.  It  is  a  well  known  fact,  that 
those  who  deny  the  essential  divinity  of  Jesus  Clii'ist,  do  also 
generally,  if  not  universally,  deny  the  doctrines  of  atonement 
and  justification  by  faith,  as  held  by  orthodox^*  christians. 
Your  reference  to  Dr.  Samuel  Claik  and  to  Bible  News  is 
utterly  irrelevant.  Dr.  Clark  did  not  deny  tlie  essential  di- 
vinity or  the  eternal  existence  of  the  Son  of  God;  and  hence 
was  not  under  the  necessity  of  denying  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment. Tiiough,  nevertheless,  I  believe  Dr.  Clark's  views  of 
the  Trinity  erroneous,  and  to  have  been  solidly  refuted  by 
Dr.  Wateiland,'  yet  it  is  not  with  Dr.  Clark,  or  with  any  who 
do  not  deny  the  essential  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  that  I  am 
concerned  in  the  present  discussion.  My  concern  is  with 
those  who  hold  Jesus  Christ  to  be  only  a  creature;  whether 
they  hold  him  to  be  "the  first  production  of  God,  the  most  ex- 
alted being  in  tlie  universe  with  the  single  exception  of  the 
infinite  Father,"  or  a  mere  man,  fallible  and  peccable  like 
other  men.  AVhatever  terms  may  be  employed  to  set  forth 
the  dignity  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  represent  him  as  being  al- 
most equal  to  the  supreme  Father,  it  is  nevertheless  certain 
that,  if  he  is  only  a  creature^  lie  is  infinitely  inferiour  to  the 
Father;  and  is  no  more  to  be  compared  with  God,  no  more  to 
be  represented  as  approaching  in  dignity  and  glory  to  him, 
than  any  other  creature,  even  man  thai  is  a  worm.  Before  Him 
whose  name  is  Jehovah  all  creatures  are  as  nothing.  This 
the  higliest  holy  creature  will  the  most  deeply  feel,  and,  feel-. 

*I  still  use  this  word  in  its  common  acceptation,  to  denote  those  christians, 
wlio  liold  the  (loetrines  of  Christ's  true  divinity,  atonement  for  sin  by  his 
death,  and  justification  by  faith  alone  in  him;  in  opposition  to  those  who  deny 
these  doctrines,  and  wliom  I  call  Unitarians,  not  b'causc  1  think  them  justly 
entitled  to  appropriate  this  name,  but  because  it  is  the  name  hy  wlucU  they 
choose  to  be  called. 


ing  this,  would  shudder  at  the  ascription  to  him  of  the 
names,  and  titles,  and  honours  ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ.  As 
it  respects  the  doctrine  of  atonement  then,  and  other  evangel- 
ical doctrines  connected  witli  it,  it  matters  not  whether  Jesus 
Clirist  be  regarded  as  a  mere  man,  or  as  a  creature  of  super- 
angelick  dignity.  If  he  is  a  mere  creature,  whatever  rank 
you  choose  to  assign  to  him,  his  death  could  not  have  been  of 
the  nature,  or  of  the  meritorious  efficacy  of  a  propitiatory 
sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  world.  It  is  therefore  with  per- 
fect consistency,  and  a  matter  «of  course"  and  necessity,  that 
those  who  hold  him  to  be  a  mere  creature,  do  actually  deny 
the  doctrines  of  atonement  and  justification,  as  held  by  ortho- 
dox christians.  What,  then,  I  "again  and  again  intimate," 
is  not  a  matter  of  mere  inference,  but  a  notorious  matter  of 
fact. 

But  is  it  not  remarkable.  Sir,  that  in  the  very  paragraph 
in  which  you  protest  against  "fastening  on  opponents  tlie 
consequences  which  seem  to  follow  from  their  system,"  you 
should  do  the  very  thing  against  which  you  protest?  You 
here  assert,  that  "the  system  of  the  Trinitarians  makes  the 
sufferings  of  Jesus  Christ  nothing  moi'e  than  the  suffeiings 
of  a  man."  Do  you  not  know.  Sir,  that  the  Trinitarians 
decidedly  deny  tliis  consequence?  Do  you  not  know  that 
they  hold  Jesus  Christ  to  be  God  and  man  united  in  one 
person — that  this  one  complex  person  suffered  and  died, — and 
that  his  death  had  all  the  importance,  all  the  merit,  all  tlie 
efficacy,  which  could  be  derived  to  it  from  the  infinite  dignity 
of  such  a  person?     He  who  was  in  the  form  of  God, 

AND    THOUGHT    IT   NO  ROBBERY  TO  BE  EQ^UAL  WITH  GoD — 

7vas  made  in  the  lihevess  of  man,  and  being  found  in  fasldon. 
as  a  mant  he  humbled  himself  and  became  obedient  unto 

DEATH,    EVEN    THE  DEATH  OF  THE  CROSS.       HoW   COuld  yOU 

then  say,  that  our  "system  makes  the  sufferings  of  Jesus 
Christ  nothing  more  tlian  the  sufferings  of  a  man?'* 

To  several  very  solemn  quotations  of  scripture,  in  my 
foi'mer  Letter,  tiiis  remark  is  subjoined:  "If  this  language 
sound  harsh  and  imfashionablc,  I  trust.  Sir,  you  will  have 
the  goodness  not  to  impute  the  fault  to  me;  and  that  you  will 
not  on  account  of  any  unpleasantness  in  the  language,  refuse 


to  give  attention  to  the  momentous  sentiment  contained  is 
it.,"  Of  this  you  complain.  The  serious  truth  is,  that  I  was 
so  forcibly  struck  with  those  passages,  in  contrast  with  the 
language  which  we  are  accustomed  to  hear  from  your  quarter, 
that  it  really  occurred  to  me  that  such  disgust  would  be  ex- 
cited by  them  in  the  minds  of  readers  of  the  liberal  class,  as 
would  almost  induce  them  to  throw  down  the  pamplilet  and 
read  no  further:  and  I  paused  to  deliberate  whether  it  might 
not  be  expedient  to  suppress  the  quotations.  It  was  under 
this  impression  that  the  remark  was  made.  On  reflection, 
however,  after  the  Letter  was  published,  and  before  I  saw 
your  reply,  I  was  ajjprehensive,  that,  in  this  instance,  I 
had  conveyed  an  unjust  imputation,  and  sincerely  regretted 
that  I  had  made  the  remark.  When  I  found  that  you  con- 
sidered it  in  this  light,  and  were  wounded  by  it,  my  regret 
was  increased.  I  confess  my  fault  in  this  particular;  and 
devoutly  wish  that  tlie  remark  could  be  obliterated  from  the 
Letter,  and  effaced  from  every  mind. 

1  have  now,  I  believe,  noticed  all  the  instances,  in  which 
you  have  intimated  that  I  am  chargeable  with  misrepresen- 
tation, or  unjiist  imputation;  and  with  these  brief  remarks,  I 
cheerfully  submit  tliem  all  to  the  candid  and  serious  reconsid- 
eration of  yourself  and  every  reader. 

My  next  inquiry  was,  whether  you  had  invalidated  any  of 
my  "criticisms,"  statements,  positions,  or  arguments:  and 
after  a  very  attentive  examination  and  re-examination,  you 
will  permit  me,  dear  Sir,  to  say,  what  I  feel  perfectly  safe  in 
saying,  it  is  my  deliberate  judgment,  and  in  it  I  have  the  con- 
currence of  all  with  whom  I  have  convei'sed  on  the  subject, 
that  you  have  not  directly  met  me  at  a  single  point,  shewn 
me  to  be  incorrect  in  a  single  statement,  nor  refuted  me  in  a 
single  position  or  argument;  and,  in  a  word,  that  your 
Remarks  are  no  real  answer  to  my  Letter. 

It  becomes  then  an  inquiry,  by  what  means  you  have  given 
to  your  Remarks  the  ajypearance  and  effect  of  an  ans\\  er?  For 
that  they  have  with  some  this  appearance  and  this  effect,  I  do 
not  doubt.  This  inquiiy,  though  a  delicate  and  unpleasant 
one.  justice  to  the  cause  of  trutli  forbids  me  to  decline. 


In  the  first  place,  you  have  imputed  to  me  a  had  spirit  a?k2 
intention.  With  this  you  begin,  and  with  this  yoii  end;  and 
in  tliis,  I  believe,  the  effective  force  of  your  Remarks  mainly 
lies.  Were  no  bad  spirit  or  intentijn  imputed  to  me,  I  pre- 
sume no  person  would  suppose  my  Letter  to  have  been  an- 
swered. But  with  persons  who  allow  theii*  feelings  and  pas- 
sions, instead  of  reason,  and  conscience,  and  scripture,  t:)  de- 
cide upon  the  controversy,  this  imputation  has  all  the  effect  of 
the  most  victorious  argument* 

My  Letter,  you  say,  "though  milder  in  language,  breaths 
too  much  af  THE  spirit  of  the  review.'*  The  spirit  of 
the  Review  you  have  represented,  in  your  Letter  to  ]Mr. 
Thacher,  as  being  a  spirit  of  "falsehood,*'  "unfairness," 
'•disingenuousiiess,"  "uncharitableness,"  "illiberality,"  "cen- 
soriousness,"  "insult,"  "bitterness,"  "malignity,"  "pride,"^ 
"cruelty,"  "fury,"  "denunciation,"  "heresy,"  and  "awful 
temerity."  It  was  by  imputing  this  spirit  to  the  Reviewer, 
that  you  roused  the  passions  of  your  party  into  a  flame. 
And  now  you  impute  to  me  the  same  spirit — whether  in  equal 
measure  you  do  not  say.  It  was  easy.  Sir,  if  nothing  in  the 
breast  rendered  it  dilllcult,  to  make  this  imputation:  but  it 
ought  not  to  have  been  made  v*'ithout  proof — clear,  substantial 
proof.  Had  you  convicted  me  of  such  a  spirit,  though  it 
would  not  have  been  a  refutation  of  my  Letter,  yet  it  would 
have  fixed  on  me  an  indispensable  obligation  to  humble  my- 
self before  you,  before  the  world,  and  above  all  before  Kim 
whose  servant  I  profess  to  be.  But  you  have  offered  no. 
proof;  and  utterly  unconscious  as  I  am  of  having  written 
with  such  a  spirit,  I  confidently  refer  it  to  all  candid  judges 
— I  humbly  refer  it  to  Him  who  judgetli  righteously — wheth- 
er tlie  imputation  is  not  entirely  gratuitous  and  unjust. 

Of  my  Letter  you  further  say,  "It  is  too  obviously  desig.v- 
ED  to  drive  both  me  and  my  brethren  from  the  church  and 
from  the  ministry."  Could  charity.  Sir,  iroither  discern  nor 
imagine  any  other  design  than  this?  Wliat  other  course  should 
have  been  adopted,  m  hat  other  means  should  have  been  used, 
had  one  designed  to  do  wliat  he  could  to  convert  Ids  tyretliren 
from  the  errour  rf  their  7rays.  and  thus  to  hide  a  mnltitudc  oj 
sins? 


1^ 

You  rcpeiitodly  speak  of  my  "attempts  to  render  your 
preaching  and  your  sentiments  odious^"  and  this  you  repre* 
sent  to  he  one  "great  object  of  my  Letter."  This  also 
plaiidy  imports  a  malignant  spirit  and  intention.  But,  Sir, 
in  wliat  way  have  I  attempted  to  render  your  sentiments  and 
preaching  odious,  excepting  hy  a  simple  exhibition  of  them, 
v\  ithont  discoKniring,  distortion,  or  declamation,  in  contrast 
with  those  of  oi-thodox  ministers  and  of  the  apostles  of  Christ. 

In  pp.  9,2  and  23,  you  make  a  representation  of  my  spirit 
and  intention,  at  wliich  you  "shudder,"  and  at  which  you 
had  reason  to  shudder.  But  that  part  of  your  Remai'ks  I 
gliall  have  occasion  to  consider  in  anotlier  j)lace. 

Towards  the  close  you  have  this  passage:  "It  does  not 
*'a])pear,  no,  not  in  a  single  line,  tliat  Dr.  Worcester  ever 
"brought  home  to  himself  the  case  of  his  injured  brethren, 
<»ever  imagined  himself  in  their  situation,  and  inquii'ed  how 
"under  such  circumstances  he  would  himself  have  felt  and 
'•'acted.'*  Here  I  am  represented  as  devoid  of  brotheily 
sympathy  and  feeling;  and  here  is  the  consummation  of  that 
unchristian  and  malignant  spii'it,  which  is  imputed  t«  me 
from  the  beginning  of  your  Remarks  to  the  end.  Sir,  I 
have  reason  to  sympathize  with  my  brethren,  whenever  they 
are  injured  by  attempts  "to  drive  them  from  the  ministry,'* 
or  to  deprive  them  of  their  comfort,  their  good  name,  or  th.eir 
usefulness;  1  have  no  occasion  to  ^nmagine  myself  in  tlieir 
situation;"  and  I  should,  indeed,  be  a  monster  of  insensihili- 
tj',  had  I  no  tenderness  of  feeling  for  them.  I  have  not  for- 
gotten that  I  was  once  myself  "driAen"  from  a  settlement,  a 
cluircii,  and  people,  dear  to  my  heart;  driven,  indeed,  not  by 
pei-secuting  Calvinists,  but  by  liberal  men;  yet  not  on  that 
account  entirely  without  pain.  I  have  witnessed  the  suffer- 
ings of  others  in  similar  circumstances,  and  particularly  of 
a  beloved  brother  in  your  vicinity.  If  I  have  not  been  de- 
ceived, tiiese  i)ainful  scenes,  wiiile  they  have  brought  me 
pretty  fully  accpiainted  with  the  charity  and  liberality  of  the 
age,  have  had  a  salutary  effect  upon  my  feelings,  and  taught 
me  how  much  it  becomes  the  professed  servants  of  Christ  to 
treat  their  bretiiren  with  forbearance,  kindness,  tenderness, 
and  undissembled  g'ood  will.  This  lesson  may  1  never  forget — 


XI 

never  fail  to  practise  towards  all  my  brethren,  however  thej 
may  differ  from  me  in  opinion,  and  in  whatever  way  I  may 
be  called  in  duty  to  bear  testimony  against  their  errours,  or 
their  proceedings. 

Your  imputation  to  me  of  a  bad  spirit  and  design,  I  do 
not  atti'ibute  to  any  particular  unfriendliness  to  me.  I  at- 
tribute it  to  a  general  cause — to  a  general  state  of  mind,  and 
habit  of  thinking  and  feeling;  and  on  this  account  I  am  in- 
duced to  consider  it  with  more  particularity,  than  I  should 
be  willing  to  bestow  on  any  thing  merely  personal.  It  is  but 
too  manifest  that  you  and  your  liberal  brethren  are  in  the 
habit  of  regarding,  and  of  representing  and  denouncing  those 
who  hold  the  sentiments  which  I  espouse,  as  being  possessed 
of  a  malignant  spirit.  And  having  been  accustomed  to  wit- 
ness how  completely  the  imputation  of  this  spirit  ^erves,  with 
a  large  portion  of  people,  instead  of  a  thousand  "proofs  of 
holy  writ"  against  us,  you  resort,  it  would  seem  habitually, 
and,  I  would  hope,  without  any  meditated  intention  to  injure, 
to  this  convenient  and  effectual  expedient.  To  what,  if  not 
to  this  habit,  sliall  we  attribute  tlie  frequent,  and  entirely  un- 
necessary mention,  botli  in  your  Letter  and  Remarks,  of 
CalvinisU;^  and  almost  always  with  some  insinuation,  as  if 
they  above  all  men  were  sinners  in  the  odious  matter  of 
persecution? 

But,  Sir,  is  this  charitable,  is  it  candid,  is  it  magnanimous, 
is  it  just?  Was  not  Arius,  the  father  of  that  class  of  Unitari- 
ans to  which  you  yourself  seem  to  belong,  a  violent  perse-; 
cutor?  Was  it  not  he  and  his  followers,  who,  first  of  all 
among  professed  christians,  set  the  hideous  and  direful  ex- 
ample of  secularizing  the,  discipline  of  the  church,  and  persp- 
cuting  their  opponents  to  imprisonment^  banishment,  and  deatJiP 
And  did  they  not  crimson  the  whole  Roman  empire  with  the 
blood  of  Trinitai'ians?    Did  not  Davides  perish  in  prison, 

•  The  present  controversy  has  no  respect  to  points  peculiarly  Calvimstick. 
Arminius  was  as  decided  as  Calvin  on  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  in  the  Godhead, 
the  entire  cormption  of  human  nature,  atonement  by  the  death  of  Christ,  justi- 
fication by  grace  through  faith  in  him,  and  moral  renovation  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
His  system,  it  is  true,  was  soon  corrupted,  and  a  mixture  of  Pelagianisra  and 
Socinianisni  came  to  be  called  Arminianism;  but  genuine  Arminianisra  is  no 
l«ss  dii-eellj  ia  opposiligu,  than  Calvinisea,  ^o  every  species  of  Uaitari»nisfji, 


12 

imdor  ilic  iinrcloiitiiip;  sovority  of  tlie  pcrsccutiiiG;  spirit  of 
Faustus  Socinus  and  his  adherents,  tlie  founders  of  anotlicr 
chiss  of  Unitarians?  Was  it  not  by  Arclibishops  Laud  and 
Shehlon,  tlie  fathers  in  England  of  adulterated  Ai'minianism, 
and  of  sentiments  once  cfillcd  latitudinarian,  now  called  lib- 
eral, that  Calvinists  were  forbidden  to  jireach  on  the  *«Five 
Points,"' — that  two  thousand  ministers,  confessedly  the  best 
in  the  kingdom,  were  "driven"  from  their  parishes  on  St. 
J3artholomew*s  day,  and  persecuted  M'ith  fines  and  imprison- 
ments, and  some  of  them  to  death, — and  that  our  Calvinis- 
tick  forefathers  were  compelled  to  leave  their  native  country, 
and  seek  an  asylum  in  the  American  wilderness?  In  our  o^\^l 
country  and  in  our  own  age,  who  have  sliewn  the  most  deter- 
mined spirit  to  *«diivc"  their  opponents  from  the  ministry, 
by  private  exertions,  by  ecclesiastical  proceedings,  and  by 
judicial  decisions?  And  since  the  commencement  of  the  pres- 
ent controversy,  on  which  side,  may  I  not  ask,  has  there 
])ecn  most  of  wrath,  and  clamour,  and  evil  speaking,  among 
the  people  in  the  places  of  greatest  excitement? 

I  ha\e  no  pleasure.  Sir,  in  adverting  to  these  deplorable 
facts;  nor  would  I,  for  my  life,  mention  them  with  the  spirit 
and  for  tlie  purpose  of  retaliation.  I  should  deem  it  most  un- 
christian, unjust,  and  injurious  in  me  to  reproach  you  and 
your  liberal  brethren,  with  tlie  violent  spirit  of  persecution, 
displayed  by  men  of  your  sentiments  in  the  days  of  other 
times,  when  ecclesiastical  discipline  was  secularized,  and 
confounded  vvith  judicial  proceedings.  I  should  deem  myself 
a  most  unfair  and  ungenerous  disputant,  should  T.  in  this 
discussion,  endeavour  to  divert  attention  from  the  real  jioints 
in  debate,  and  to  enlist  passion  and  prejudice  on  my  side,  by 
a  perpetual  recurrence  to  such  exti'aneous  and  odious  facts. 
Persuaded  as  I  am,  tliat  your  feelings  would  revolt  at  the 
thouglit  of  acting  over  again  the  violent  and  bloody  scenes  of 
Arius  or  of  Laud;  I  am  no  less  full  in  the  confidence,  that  you 
have  no  good  reason  to  believe,  or  to  insinuate,  that  your  op- 
ponents would  not  revolt  witli  equal  horrour  from  evei-y  thing 
like  "the  ilamcs  lighted  for  Servetus."  Such  a  belief,  such 
an  insinuation,  pei-mit  me,  dear  Sii%  to  say,  is  unworthy  of 
your  enliglitened  mind,  and  your  elevated  standing:  and  could 


13 

Hcvcr  have  found  a  place  mth  yon,  but  for  the  iinpropitious 
habit  to  which  I  liave  referred,  and  of  which  probably  yon 
have  been  too  little  conscious. 

Have  we  yet  to  learn,  that  the  spirit  of  pcrsccntion  is  the 
offspring,  not  of  any  pai-ticular  system  of  religious  sentiments, 
but  of  that  corruption  of  our  fallen  nature,  which,  if  not  sub- 
dued by  divine  grace,  will  exert  itself  against  the  true  spirit 
of  the  gospel,  sometimes  iii  the  form  of  a  fiend  of  dai'kness, 
sometimes  in  the  guise  of  an  angel  of  light,  according  to  cir- 
cumstances. It  ought  not  to  have  been  mentioned  in  the 
pvesent  controversy.  On  neither  side  are  we  pleading  for 
persecution.  In  regard  to  this  spirit,  its  atrocity  or  its 
hatefulness,  there  is  no  question  between  iis^  and  to  fix  tlie 
attention  upon  this,  as  if  it  were  mainly  or  in  part  the  subject 
matter  in  debate,  can  serve  no  other  purpose,  than  to  excite 
passion,  inflame  prejudice,  embitter  feeling,  mislead  the 
judgment,  and  bar  the  mind  against  argument  and  truth.  It 
is  time,  and  more  than  time,  that  every  tiling  of  this  sort 
should  be  utterly  discarded,  by  enlightened  and  liberal  men. 
and  by  all  who  would  bear  the  christian  name.  Though 
we  differ,  and  widely  differ  in  our  opinions; — though  we  en- 
gage in  debate  on  most  imporlant  and  interesting  points; — 
though  we  should  find  occasion  even  to  separate  as  to  cliris- 
tian  fellowship;  yet  there  need  not  be,  there  ought  not  to  be, 
and  if  our  tempers  were  right  there  would  not  be,  any  bitter- 
ness, or  w  rath,  or  anger,  or  clamour,  or  evil  speaking  on  ci- 
ther side.  The  gospel  teaches  us  to  exercise  unfailing  char- 
ity and  good  will,  not  only  towards  those  whom  wcTCCcive  to 
christian  fellow  ship,  but  towards  all  men. 

Another  of  your  meaiis  for  giving  to  your  Remarks  the 
appearance  and  effect  of  an  answer  is  that  of  representing  my 
Letter  as  being  light  and  "trifling."  Yon  speak  repeatedly, 
and  not  a  little  contemptuously  of  "verbal  criticism,"  and  of 
"humour  and  sarcasm."  Of  the  criticism,  I  shall  have  oc- 
casion to  take  some  notice  in  anotiier  place:  upon  the  rest, 
my  remarks  will  be  short.  If,  Sir,  I  have  used  lightness,  if 
my  Letter  was  not  serious,  I  was  greatly  deceived  and  great- 
ly to  blame.  The  subject  I  certainly  considei-ed  a  very  mo- 
pientous  one;  and  I  did  really  apprehend  tliat  the  seriousness 


14 

with  which  I  treated  it  would  he  offensive  to  many.  If,  as 
you  say,  particularly  in  regai'd  to  the  last  head,  "the  view 
which  I  took  of  the  suhjert  gave  me  a  field  for  my  powers  of 
humour  and  sarcasm,"  I  believe  that  you  and  every  reader 
must  suppose  that  my  powers  of  this  kind  ai"e  extremely  lim- 
ited and  feeble.  I  confess  I  was  forcibly  reminded  by  your 
remaiks,  that  a  writer,  whose  name  I  will  not  mention  in  any 
connexion  with  yours,  chose  to  call  the  book  of  Proverbs 
"Solomon's  Jest  Book." — "Let  us  open  the  book,"  says  the 
Bisliop  of  LandafF  in  his  answer,  "and  see  what  kind  of  jests 
it  contains." 

Another  of  the  means  by  which  you  have  given  to  your 
Remai'ks  the  appearance  and  effects  of  an  answer  is  that  of  di- 
verting  attention  from  the  point  ami  the  argument;  and  in 
such  a  way  as  to  have  the  effect  of  suppressing  the  truth. 
Besides  wliat  is  general  of  this  kind,  in  imputing  to  me  a  bad 
spirit  and  a  light  manner;  there  arc  particular  instances,  some 
of  which  it  may  be  proper  to  consider. 

In  regard  to  my  first  head,  you  very  candidly  acknowledge, 
tliat  I  liave  "pointed  out  an  inaccuracy  in  the  language  which 
you  employed  to  express  the  charges  contained  in  the  Review." 
This  pointing  out  of  a  slight  verbal  inaccuracy  you  repre- 
sent iis  being  all  that  I  liave  done;  and  to  this  head  entii-e  you 
seem  to  refer  in  your  repeated  mention  of  "verbal  criticism." 
Thus  by  noticing  a  trivial  cii'cumstance,  and  giving  to  the 
whole  a  liglit  name,  you  divert  the  attention  from  the  main 
point  ajid  argument,  and  conceal  the  ti'utli  in  the  case. — You 
had  brought.  Sir,  against  the  Reviewer,  the  heavy  charge  of 
'falsehood.''^  This  charge  I  sincerely  believed  to  be  unfound- 
ed; and  I  attempted,  not  merely  by  pointing  out  a  small  ver- 
bal inaccuracy,  but  by  faii'ly  examining  those  parts  of  the  Re-^ 
view  to  which  you  referred,  to  show  that  it  really  was  unfoun- 
ded. I  do  not  rest  on  my  own  judgment  only  in  the  persuasion 
which  I  feel,  that  in  this  attempt  I  was  not  unsuccessful.  But 
you  say,  "the  question  is  not  what  a  verbal  critick  with  a  dic- 
tionary in  his  hand  may  make  out  of  the  Review,  but  what 
are  the  impressions  wliich  readers  at  large  receive  from  it." 
Here,  Sir,  I  again  protest  against  the  "rule"  of  construction 
winch  you  have  repeatedly  applied;  at  least  against  your  man- 


15 

her  of  applying  it.  You  surely  cannot  be  unapprised,  that 
people  receive  very  different  "impressions"  from  "writings'* 
and  discourses,  especially  on  controverted  points,  according 
to  the  different  tempers,  or  states  of  mind,  with  which  they 
read  or  hear.  If,  as  you  intimate,  you  have  not  met  with  a 
single  individual  who  did  not  receive  from  the  Review,  impres- 
nions,  coincident  mth  the  charge  which  you  made,*  I,  on  the 
ether  hand,  have  not  met  with  a  single  individual  who  did  re- 
ceive such  impressions:  and  I  really  believe  there  were  very 
few  who  did,  before  tlieir  minds  were  prepared  for  it  by  your 
Letter.  Your  "way,'*  then,  "of  settling  the  dispute"  is  not 
so  *<short  a  one"  as  you  seem  to  imagine. 

I  was  far.  Sir,  from  believing  that  you  intendexl  to  prefer 
against  the  Reviewer  a  false  and  injurious  charge.  I 
really  did  suppose  that,  owing  to  some  unpleasant  state  of 
mind,  you  had  received  from  the  Review  an  incorrect  im- 
pression; and  did  hope  that  you  w^ould  see,  and  rejoice  to  see, 
that  it  was  incorrect,  and  do  honour  to  yourself  and  to  our  ho- 
ly profession,  by  frankly  retracting  ti.e  accusation,  and  re- 
dressing the  wrong  which  you  had  unwittingly  committed. — 
And  here  I  must  say,  that  I  am  more  fully  persuaded,  if  pos- 
sible, than  when  I  wrote  before,  that  your  first  charge  against 
the  Reviewer  is  entirely  unjust;  and  that  liad  you  duly  atten- 
ded to  the  scope  of  his  remarks,  you  would  have  seen,  that 
where  he  speaks  of  "Unitarianism,  in  Mr.  Belsham's  sense  of 
the  word,  being  the  predominant  religion  of  tlie  liberal  party," 
he  meant  not  to  determine  any  thing  in  respect  to  numbers, 
but  only  in  respect  to  -prominence  and  influence.  His  refer- 
ence to  the  college  and  to  the  principal  publications  of  the 
party,  makes  his  meaning  sufficiently  plain. 

You  say,  p.  14.  that  I  "again  and  again  intimate  that  Uni- 
tarians, of  course f  reject  all  the  great  and  distinguishing 
doctrines  of  the  gospel,  particularly  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment by  Christ's  death."  And  upon  this  you  ask,  if  it  is 
"possible  that  I  am  unacquainted  with  the  ^vritings  of  Dr. 
Samuel  Clark,  and  with  Bible  News,"  in  which  books  the 
doctrine  of  atonement  is  asserted.  I  have  before  noticed  the 
implied  charge  in  this  of  misrepresentation  on  my  part;  what 
I  would  now  notice  is  your  turning  the  attention  from  the 


16 

iact  and  the  proof,  anil  concealin.J?  the  truth  in  the  case.  1 
know  very  well  that,  in  the  writin.^s  here  referred  to,  the 
doctrine  of  atonement  is  asserted^  and  I  also  know,  and  all 
who  are  conversant  with  tliis  suhject  know,  that  the  Unitarian 
writers  of  the  piTsent  day  generally  ilcny  tliis  doctrine,  as 
do  all  who  agree  with  them  in  denying  the  essential  divinity 
of  Jesus  Clirist:  and  if  Dr.  Clark's  works  and  Bihle  News 
are  *'|)opular"  among  tliem,  it  is  not  hecause  they  assert  the 
docti'ine  of  atonement j  hut  because  they  serve  to  unsettle  the 
minds  of  people  in  regard  to  the  Trinit},  and  to  start  them 
from  the  rock  down  the  steep  and  feuii'ul  declivity  of  Unita- 
rianism. 

<'Therc  is  a  part*'  of  my  Letter  you  say,  p.  19,  "accord- 
ing to  which  our  cliaiity  towai'ds  the  lovrest  Unitarians  not 
only  proves  our  indiffercucc  to  truth,  but  makes  us  partakers 
in  their  sentiments  and  deeds."  To  divert  attention  from  the 
point  and  the  argument  here,  you  instantly  direct  it  to  Cal- 
vinists,  and  Hopkinsians.  "It  is  well  known,"  you  say, 
<»tluit  the  old  fiisliioned  Calvinists  regard  the  new  divinity  of 
"the  Hopkinsians  witii  great  horrourj  but  it  is  also  true 
"that  'a  peculiar  brotherhood  is  established'  between  tlicse 
'•two  classes  of  christians  in  New  England.  The  Calvinists 
"here  have  never,  as  a  party,  borne  testimony  against  Hop- 
"kinsian  peculiarities,  have  never  'purged  themselves  from 
"tlie  guilt  of  them,'  but  walk  with  Hopkinsians  on  as  friend- 
«<ly  terms  as  we  do  with  tiie  lowest  Unitarians."  Admit 
all  that  you  here  state  to  be  true;  does  it  prove  that  "the 
liberal  party"  are  not  guilty  of  "mutilating  tlie  New  Tcsta- 
.ment,  rejecting  nearly  all  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  tln^ 
gospel,  and  degrading  the  Saviour  to  the  condition  of  a  falli- 
ble, peccable,  and  ignorant  man?"  Not  in  tlie  least.  But 
there  is  an  egregious  errour  in  your  statement.  It  is  a  well 
known  fact,  that  what  you  call  the  old  fashioned  Calvinists  in 
New  England,  have  borne  their  earnest,  decided,  and  publick 
testimony  against  what  they  consider  as  errours  in  the  Ilop- 
kinsian  theory;  and  tlie  Hopkinsians,  on  their  part,  have 
borne  their  testimony,  equally  earnest,  decided,  and  publick, 
against  wliat  they  regard  as  errours  in  the  old  Calvinistick 
system.      But  \\  hilc  they  have  done  tiiis,  they  have  not,  on 


17 

either  part,  held  these  erroiirs  to  be  fundamental,  as  tliey  do 
hold  the  erroursof  the  Unitariansj  but  have  mutually  regard- 
ed each  other  as  being-  orthodox  and  sound,  in  the  great  es- 
sentials of  christian  docti'ine.  And,  Sir,  however  grievous 
it  may  be  to  their  common  opponents,  the  acknowledged  fact 
thattheydo  "\yalk  together  on  friendly  terms,"  notwithstand- 
ing their  minor  diifarences  and  disputes,  and  all  tlie  attempts 
from  your  quarter  to  sow  discord  between  them,  is  highly 
honourable  to  their  principles  and  feelings^  and  affords  most 
decisive  proof  tliat,  in  the  allegations  so  continually  and  ve- 
hemently urged  against  tiiem,  as  if  they  were  entirely  devoid 
of  cliarity,  and  would  acknowledge  as  christians  none  who 
differ  from  them  in  any  point,  they  have  been  slaudcrously 
reported.  Had  "the  old  fashioned  Calvinists  of  New  York" 
been  as  well  acquainted  with  t!ie  sentiments  and  cliaracters 
of  tlie  diffi  rent  classes  of  orthodox  christians  in  New  Eng- 
land, as  these  are  with  one  anotlier,  they  would  never  have 
given  the  recommendations  which  they  have  given  to  such  a 
book  as  Ely's  Contrast. 

Another  of  the  means  by  which  you  have  given  to  your 
Remarks  the  appearance  and  effect  of  an  answei',  is  that  of 
misstatement.  Let  me  distinctly  premise  that  as,  in  the, 
preceding  articles,  I  have  not  intended  in  any  instance  to 
impeach  your  motives,  so  here  I  mean  not  to  insinuate  that 
you  have  designedly  misstated.  The  misstatements  which  I 
am  about  to  point  out,  and  which  are  only  a  part  of  what 
might  be  pointed  out,  I  attribute  to  no  bad  intention,  but  to 
tlie  vague  and  indiscriminating  manner  of  treating  subjects, 
to  which  you  seem  to  be  habituated. 

"It  may  next  be  observed,"  you  say,  p.  9,  "that  the  com- 
mon disputes  about  the  great  doctrines  of  the  gospel  have 
not  related  so  much  to  their  truth  and  importance,  as 
to  some  inferiour  points  connected  with  them."  Now,  Sir, 
in  dii'ect  opposition  to  this  staitement,  I  should  feel  the 
utmost  safety  in  aflirming,  that  "the  disputes  about  the 
great  doctrines  of  the  gospel  have  related,"  and  do  relate 
primarily  and  "chiefly  to  their  truth  and  importance." 
This  unquestionably  is  the  fact  in  regard  to  the  doctrines 
directly  in  question  in  the  present  dispute:  the  doctruies 
3 


18 


of  the  Trinity  in  tlic  Godlicad,  t'lc  true  diA'inity  of  the 
Savionr,  atoniment  for  sin  by  his  death,  and  justification 
tlirougii  faith  in  hks  blood.  On  our  part,  these  doctrines 
are  held  to  be  true  and  essentially  important;  on  your 
part,  both  the  importance  and  the  truth  of  them  arc  deni- 
ed. So  long  as  this  is  the  case,  to  dispute  about  "inferi- 
our  points  connected  with  these  doctrines'*  would  be  most 
idle  and  preposterous.  To  give  some  plausibility  to  your 
strange  assertion,  you  refer  to  disputes  concerising  the 
**benevolence  of  God"  and  "his  omnipresence."  But  these, 
Sir,  are  not  *<peculiar  doctrines  of  the  gospel,"  but  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  natural  religion.  "In  like  manner," 
however,  you  say,  "christians  have  disputed  about  the  pre- 
cise way  in  which  Christ's  death  has  an  influence  on  our 
forgiveness:  but  tliat  it  has  a  real  and  important  influence 
on  forgiveness  almost  all  have  united  in  asserting."  This 
is  one  instance  out  of  many  of  the  manner,  in  wliich  you 
conceal  the  real  and  essential  points  of  difference  in  debate. 
The  plain  truth  is,  and  it  ought  not  to  be  concealed,  that 
while  some  professed  christians  hold  the  death  of  Christ, 
God  manifest  in  the  fiesli,  to  have  been  an  expiatory  sacrifice 
for  sin,  on  account  of  which  solely  and  through  faith  in 
this  blood,  forgiveness  is  to  be  obtained;  others  deny  this 
docti-ine  entirely,  and  hold  that  the  death  of  Clu-ist,  a  mere 
creature,  was  in  no  proper  sense  expiatory,  and  has  no 
influence  on  forgiveness,  only  as  it  attests  the  trutli  cf  his 
religion  and  the  benevolence  of  God.  It  is  i)i  this  latter 
sense,  at  least  in  some  sense  altogether  different  from  the 
former,  uu(U)uhtedly,  that  you  ''tell  your  Ijearers  that  God 
sent  his  Sun  to  die  for  us."  The  difference  betv/cen  us  in 
regard  to  "spiritual  influences,"  to  which  you  also  refer,  is 
not  less  wide  and  essential.  And,  Sii%  I  believe  you  might 
be  less  "general  and  va^ue  in  vouv  representation  of  tlie 
truths  of  tlie  gospel,"  ami  not  "be  precise  above  what  is 
written,"  nor  less  *<faithful"  than  you  now  are. 

"It  is  urged,"  you  say.  p.  16,  "tliat  ovr  sentiments 
XEAD  us  into  an  e)itire  indiffi-rence  to  christian  truth;  that 
we  believe  all  crrour  to  be  innocent:  that  we  consider  belief 
in  the  truth  as  no  virtue."     No,  Sir:  but  what  I  advanced 


19 

en  this  topick  was  "urged"  directly  and  explicitly  upon  yom- 
broad  assertion,  tlrat  "to  believe  with  Mr.  Belshani  is  no 
crime,"  in  connexion  with  other  declarations  and  represen- 
tations to  the  same  effect.  Why  then  did  you  not  fairly  and 
magnanimously  meet  me  upon  this  ground?  As  to  what  you 
say  in  this  connexion  of  "love  of  the  truth,"  as  being  essen- 
tial to  the  "faith  to  which  salvation  is  proinised,"  there  is  no 
controversy  between  us.  I  am  happy  in  expressing  my 
agreement  with  you  in  this  point;  and  most  devoutly  wish 
that  in  every  other  important  point  we  were  equally  agreed. 
In  coincidence  also  with  you,  I  hold  that  tiiere  may  be  true 
faith,  where  there  is  but  little  knowledge  of  divine  truth.  1 
am  accustomed  to  make  a  wide  difference  behveen  ignorarxe 
of  truth  and  rejection  of  truth;  between  the  infelicity  of 
bad  instruction,  and  scanty  means  of  divine  kno\\ledge; 
and  the  audacity  of  opposing  reason  to  revelation,  and  tlie 
wisdom  of  tltis  world  to  the  wisdom  of  God. 

What  I  offered  under  tlie  third  and  last  head  of  ray  Letter, 
on  the  question  of  "separation,"  and  which  you  say  is  "infi- 
nitely the  most  important  part"  of  the  whole,  you  have 
almost  entirely  misstated.  I  did  not  undertake  to  decide  the 
question  of  separation  in  the  way  of  giving  an  opinion;  but 
thought  it  more  befitting,  and  more  likely  to  be  useful,  to 
submit  some  considerations,  relating  to  tlie  subject,  vihich 
appeared  to  me  relevant,  and  worthy  to  be  most  seriously 
weighed  on  both  sides.  To  these  considerations  you  bring 
no  argument  in  reply. 

You  represent,  that  "'the  separation,  which  has  been  made 
in  England  by  the  Unitarians  themselves,"  is  soniethiiig  far 
less  "solemn," — vastly  less  dreadful,  tlian  the  separation 
which  you  suppose  me  to  favour,  Vriiat  then  is  the  separa- 
tion which  the  Unitarians  in  England  have  made?  You  de- 
scribe it  to  be  "«  separation  in  worship — a  separation  pro- 
duced by  the  adoption  of  pkayers,  hymiss,  and  doxol- 

OGIES,  accommodated  TO  THEIR  PECULIAH  SENTIMENTS." 

Are  we  to  understand.  Sir,  that  you  and  your  liberal  breth- 
ren here,  arc  ready  for  such  a  separation  as  tisis?  If  so,  there 
is  no  further  occasion  of  debate  on  this  subject,  unless  your 
opponents  should  be  unwilling  to  separate.     Let  it  be  under- 


20 

stood,  that  the  differences  between  us  arc  such,  that  we  can- 
not consistently  worship  together — cannot  unite  in  offering  the. 
same  prayers^  nor  join  in  the  same  hymns  and  doxologies, — and 
the  question  is  settled.  What  is  this,  I  pray  you.  sliort  of  a 
thorough  disruption  of  fellowship,  a  complete  non-commu- 
nion?— Yet  this  separation  you  admit  to  have  been  made  by 
the  Unitarians  themselves  in  England,  and  of  this  you  ex- 
press not  the  slightest  disapprobation. 

You  omit,  howevei',  to  stdte  «'fco  t!ic  publirk*'  the  strong 
terms  and  the  earnest  nnanier,  in  which  the  English  Unita- 
rians urge  this  separation.  You  do  n  »t  mention  that  they 
loudly  call  upj.n  their  people  <'to  come  out  from  Babylon," — 
to  separate  thenjselves  from  idolaters^  and  earnestly  rep- 
resent that  the  separation  of  Unitarians  from  Trinitarians 
is  as  obviously  proper  and  necessary,  as  was  the  separation 
of  the  Protestants  from  the  church  of  Rome,  and  that  such 
Unitarians  as  continue  to  worship  with  Trinitarians,  arc 
either  still  in  great  darkness,  or  » Ise  g.tilty  of  compromising 
their  consciences  to  a  most  reprehensible  extent.  This  you 
Jiave  omitted  to  mention:  yet  you  who  are  much  more  exten- 
sively conversant  with  the  English  Unitarian  writei's,  than 
I  can  pretend  to  be,  must  have  been  perfectly  acquainted 
with  the  fact. 

Such  then  is  the  separation,  made  by  the  Unitarians  them- 
selves in  England;  and  such  tlie  terms  and  the  manner  in 
Avhich  its  imi)ortance  is  urged.  Of  this  se])aration,  I  repeat 
it,  you  expi-ess  no  disapprobati<n:  ^  ou  speak  of  it  in  no  oth- 
er manner,  than  if  in  your  judgment  it  were  entirely  unob- 
jectionable. Now,  Sir,  perirat  me  to  ask,  what  greater  or 
more  dreadful  separation  than  this,  do  any  of  your  opponents 
contemplate?  Has  evrn  the  Panoplist  Reviewer  prcjuised  any 
thing  more  frightful?  or  has  he  urged  his  propt'sal  in  terms 
more  decisive,  or  in  a  manner  more  vehement?  To  what,  be- 
yond this,  can  any  of  the  considerations  submitted  in  my  Let- 
ter, by  fair  construction  or  legitimate  inferen(  e,  be  made  to 
favour? 

Y'et  speaking  of  me,  p.  23,  you  say,  <«The  obvious  import 
*<of  his  Letter  (and  it  is  the  obviofs  iMroRT,  and  not  a 

♦•STRAINED    AND     CIRCUITOUS    INTERPRETATION    WHICH    I 


21 

iVREGATiD)  may  be  thus  expressed:  <Every  man  who  cannot 
.-  «  admit  as  a  doctrine  of  scripture,  the  great  doctrine  op 

«<THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD,  AVHICH  I  AND  OTHER  OR- 
*«  <THODOX  CHRISTIANS    EMBRACE,  BELIEVES    AN   OPPOSITE 

« <GOSPEii,  REJECTS  THE  TRUE  GOSPEL,  despises  the  aiitliority 
«  <of  Jesus  Christ,  is  or  course  a  man  wholly  wanting  in 

i'  *TRUE  PIETY  AND  WITHOUT  CHRISTIAN  VIRTUE^  and  may 

«  *in  perfect  consistency  with  christian  love  be  rejected  as  un- 
« <worthy  the  name  of  a  christian.'  "  Here,  Sir,  I  suppose 
you  to  have  applied  the  «rule"  of  construction  which  I  have 
twice  before  noticed, — that  of  the  "impression"  which  hap- 
pened to  be  made  on  your  mind,  without  duly  considering  the 
meaning  of  the  words,  and  the  scope  of  the  argument.  And 
here  I  record  my  final  and  solemn  protest  against  your  use  of 
this  rule. 

In  vain,  Sir,  will  any  one  search  in  my  Letter  for  what 
you  would  make  me  say.  1  did  indeed  think  it  right,  not 
"studiously  to  magnify"  the  points  of  difference  between  us, 
which  you  seemed  studiously  to  conceal;  but  distinctly  to  state 
them,  and  set  them  in  a  fair  and  clear  light.  In  doing  tiiis, 
I  contrasted  :Mr.  Bclsham's  sentiments  with  the  doctrines 
held  by  orthodox  christians;  (not  however  making  you  an- 
swerable for  those  sentiments,  any  further  than  as  you  plead 
for  their  being  held  in  general  christian  fellowsliip;)  and  I 
did  pronounce  that  "one  or  the  other  of  these  schemes  must 
be  wliat  St.  Paul  denominates  another  gospel,  and  against 
which  and  its  abetters  he  solemnly  pronounces  his  apostoli(  k 
anathema.''  This  is  the  most  that  1  have  any  where  said. 
I  did  not  draw  the  ivferencef  that  "every  man"  who  rejects 
the  orthodox  docti-incs  and  embraces  Mr.  Belsham's  senti- 
ments, "is  of  course  a  man  whoily  -icaniing  in  tme  piety,  mid 
without  christian  virtue,"  This,  Sir,  is  your  own  inference; 
I  have  said  no  such  thing.  I  do  not,  however,  complain  of 
your  making  the  inference,  though  you  protest  against  the 
practice:  but  since  you  hax-e  made  it,  you  will  permit  me  to 
hold  you  to  it.  By  making  this  inference,  you  give  it  to  be 
understood,  and  in  effect  concede,  that  in  your  own  judgment 
every  one  who  does  embrace  another  gospel,  th&n  that  whirh 
Paul  preached,  "is  of  course  wliolly  warding  in  true  piety,  r;nd 
■^vithout  christian  virtue." — Now,    Sir,   ^^ilI  you  deny  the 


22 

premises?  "VN'ill  you  deny,  that  either  Mr.  Belsham's  system, 
or  that  called  orthodox,  must  be  aiiotlicr  gospel?  W'Ol  you 
deuy  that  these  two  systems  are  esseDtiiilly  different,  from 
tiie  foundation  to  tlie  topstone?  TTe  ai'e  here,  as  you  will  cer- 
taiidy  perceive,  to  lay  out  of  the  question  the  doctrines  of 
natural  i-eligijn,  and  confine  our  attention  to  such  as  are  pe- 
cidiar  to  the  gospel.  Do  not,  then,  the  Unitai'ians,  whose 
sentiments  are  set  forth  by  Mr  Belsham,  reject  every  doc- 
trine of  the  gospel,  as  held  by  orthodox  christians?  I  am  per- 
suaded. Sir,  you  w  ill  not  deny  this.  Your  own  infei-ence.  then, 
is  that  eiiher  those  who  embrace  Mr.  Belsham's  scheme,  or 
those  who  hold  the  doctrines  called  orthodox,  ai'e  **of  coiu^e 
w  hblly  wanting  in  true  piety  and  without  chi*istian  virtue." 
I  now  refer  it  to  you  to  say  further,  whether  they  can  con- 
sistently meet  together  at  the  table  of  the  Lord. 

But  you  make  me  say,  not  only  that  the  Unitarians  who 
hold  with  Mr.  Belsham,  are  "w  hoUy  wanting  in  true  piety 
and  wit'iout  chnstian  virtue,"  which  I  have  no  wliere  said; 
hut  also  that  *»eTeiy'  man"  is  so,  "who  cannot  admit  as  a 
doctrine  of  scripture,  the  great  doctrine  of  tliree  persons  in 
one  God,  which  I  and  other  orthodox  christians  embrace." 
So  far,  however,  from  having  said  this,  I  have  not  even  as- 
serted the  premises  from  wliich  such  an  inference  could  be 
drawn.  Xo  where  have  1  said  or  intimated,  that  every  one 
wlio  does  not  admit  the  doctiiue  of  the  Trinity  as  I  hold  it, 
•'rejects  the  true  gospel,  and  believes  an  opposite  gospel." 
For  stating  that  I  have  said  this,  you  have  not  the  shadow  of 
a  warrant. 

Dr.  Samuel  Clark's  \icws  of  the  Trinity,  as  I  hcfore  inti- 
mated, are  veiy  different  fi-om  mine  and  those  called  ortho- 
dox, and  in  my  judgment  very  erroneous,  and  of  dangerous 
tendency.  Yet  I  am  by  no  means  prejjai'ed  to  say,  tliat  every 
one  who  adopts  liis  views  of  the  Trinity  rejects  the  ti-ue  gos- 
pel, embraces  another,  and  Ls  dev(»id  of  christian  faith  and 
virtue  fur  I  can  suppose  that  a  person  may  adopt  tliose  views, 
and  yet  be  a  sound  believer  in  the  doctiine  of  atonement  by 
Christ's  death,  and  of  justification  through  faith  in  his  blood. 
As  much  as  t  lis  I  am  also  ready  to  say  respecting  other  views 
of  the  Tiiiiity  very  different  from  mine,  and  in  my  opinion 


very  erroneous  and  dangerous.  Let  me  repeat  it,  and  let  it 
be  remembered,  my  concern  in  this  debate  is  with  those  w  ho 
deny  tlie  essential  divinity,  and  the  propitiatoi^  sacrifice  of 
Jesus  Christ,  These  doctrines  I  certainly  do  consider  as 
constituting  the  very  foundation  of  the  gospel,-  and  I 
feel  no  unwillingness  to  have  it  understood,  that  in  my  judg- 
ment every  one  who  rejects  tliese  doctrines  does  reject  the 
true  gospel,  and  must  either  embrace  anotlier  gospel,  or  be 
a  Jew  or  an  Infidel.  If  you  say,  .as  you  have  before  infer- 
ed,  "then  all  who  deny  these  doctrines  are  whdly  wanting 
in  true  piety  and  without  ciiristian  ^■il•tup^"  I  will  leave  you 
in  the  quiet  possession  of  the  inference,  and  woidd  earnestly 
recommend  it  to  your  very  sei-ious  conrsideration. 

For  myself,  however,  I  think  it  suiUcient  at  present,  to 
refer  the  deniei*s  of  tliese  docti'ines,  as  I  would  all  othei-s,  in 
regard  to  their  inward  piety  and  tlicir  final  state,  to  Him 
w ho  searchcth  the  heai't,  and  to  whom  it  belongs  to  award 
the  retributions  of  eternitj^  Always,  Sir,  would  I  feel,  and 
deeply  feel,  that  I  am  a  ''frail,  fallible  creature:'*  and  if  for 
this  j'eason  I  sJiould  "sliudder  at  the  awful  temerity'*  of  ad- 
judging to  final  perdition,  "men  of  tlie  profoundest  under- 
standings, of  the  purest  lives,  ar.d  of  unwearied  devotion  to 
the  study  of  God's  word;"  no  less  should  I  shudder  at  the 
no  less  awful  temerity^  of  adjudgi)ig  to  eternal  life,  men, 
however  fair  their  characters  in  the  eyes  of  the  world,  how- 
ever renowned  for  wliat  the  world  calls  wisdom,  however 
distinguished  among  the  fiiends  of  science,  or  of  sacred  lit- 
erature, who,  nevertheless,  deny  the  blood  of  atonement,  de- 
grade tlie  Lord  ivho  bought  tJiem  to  the  condition  of  a  mere 
creature,  and,  not  submittivg  themselves  to  the  rlghttor.sness 
of  Godf  go  about  to  establish  tlieir  otcii  righteousness.  I  did 
not,  therefire,  when  writing  my  former  Letter,  nor  do  I 
now,  think  it  incumbent  on  me  to  dwterinine  how  much  of 
divine  trutli  a  man  may  reject,  and  yet  have  saving  faith: 
or  what  is  the  precise  point  or  degree  of  errour,  beyond 
which  tiiere  can  be  no  hope  of  any  one's  salvation.  ^Mth 
questif)ns  of  this  soi-t,  1  iiave  not  at  all  intermeddled:  not 
only  because  I  am  consciously  incompetent  to  decide  upon 
tlicm:  but  also  because  I  do  not  consider  them  as  belonging 


to  the  pi-pscTit  (Hsciissioit:  and  I  have  wished  that  the  discus- 
sion might  not  be  iiuunibcred  or  perplexed  with  any  tiling 
extraneous  or  irrelevant. 

The  question  now  at  issue  is,  whether  visible  christian  fel- 
lowship ought  to  be  maintained  between  orthodox  christians  and 
Unitarianst  There  are  cases,  indisputably,  in  which  it  may 
be  right  to  maintain  visible  fellowsiiip  with  individuals,  re- 
spectinii;  the  sincerity  of  whose  christian  profession  we  may 
have  very  strong  doubts;  on  the  other  hand,  there  may  be 
cases  in  which  it  wore  riglit  to  decline  visible  fellowsiiip  with 
individuals,  of  whose  christian  sincerity  we  have  very  strong 
hopes.  When,  in  the  regular  exercise  of  dis(  ipline,  a  church 
passes  the  sentence  of  excommunication  upon  a  peccant  mem- 
ber, it  does  not  by  that  act  pronounce  tlie  excluded  person  to 
be  "wholly  wanting  in  true  piety  and  without  christian  vir- 
tue." Leaving  that  decisi(>n  to  the  omniscient  Judge,  it  is 
sufficient  for  the  churoh  to  decide,  that  the  person  is  so  dis- 
orderly in  his  walk,  or  so  corrupt  in  his  sentiments,  that  the 
purity  and  welfare  of  the  church,  the  honour  of  i-eligion, 
and  fidelity  to  the  cause  of  truth,  rc(|iiii'e  his  exclusion.  This 
dc(  ision  siiould  be  made,  only  in  the  spirit  of  charity,  and 
in  the  fear  of  God.  Upon  tlie  same  general  principle,  a 
church  may  with(h"aw  fellowship  irom  another  church,  with- 
out meaning  to  pronounce  that  every  individual  in  that  other 
church  is  utterly  graceless  and  in  a  state  of  condemnation. 
The  Protestants  did  not  pronounce  this,  when  they  scpaj'- 
ated  from  the  church  of  Rome: — but  they  did  pronounce  that 
the  errours  of  that  churcli  %vere  subversive  of  the  gospel, 
and  most  dangci'ous  to  the  eternal  interests  of  mankind; 
and  they  felt  it  incumbent  on  them  to  come  out  aiui  be  separate 
from  all  communion  with  those  errours,  and  to  bear  their 
publiik,  de(  idi^^d,  and  most  solemn  testimony  against  them. 

]S'<>thlng  more  than  this,  Sir,  has  been  proposed  in  tlie 
present  case.  It  is  our  solemn  conviction,  that  the  erroui-s 
of  the  Unitarians  are  subversive  of  the  gospel,  and  most 
dangerous  to  the  eternal  interests  of  mankind;  and  we  think 
it  right  rfnd  indispensably  incumbent  on  us,  clearly  to  de- 
velo])e  thciu  before  the  W()i-hl,  fully  to  display  their  enormi- 
ty and  their  pernicious  tendency,  and  faithfully  to  bear  our 


&3 


testimony  against  them,  and  to  wara  all  people  to  beware 
lest  they  be  deceived  and  misled  by  them  to  their  final  ruin. 
This  we  believe  to  be  an  urgent  dictate  of  that  charitv, 
which  supremely  seeks  the  glory  of  God  and  the  salvation  of 
men:  a  dictate,  which  we  are  fully  persuaded  we  may  obey, 
withoutjustly  incurring  the  charge  of  "awful  temerity,"— 
without  pronouncing  any  "sentence*'  more  "tremendous"  than 
we  are  warranted  by  the  word  of  God  to  pronounce,— without 
taking  upon  ourselves  any  "responsibility,"  whicii  it  would 
not  be  treacherous  and  most  criminal,  in  those  who  are  set  for 
the  defence  of  the  gospel,  to  decline. 

Such,  Sir,  are  my  views^  such  are  the  principles  on  which,  in 
my  former  Letter,  the  remarks  and  ai-guments  on  tlie  subject 
of  separation  m  ere  foimded;  and  with  tiiese  views  and  princi- 
ples, all  which  is  there  advanced  is  in  perfect  and  most  evi- 
dent coincidence — Your  statement,  therefore,  of  the  "import 
of  the  concluding  part"  of  my  Letter  is  most  palpably  incor- 
rect and  unjust.  And  though  I  attribute  this  incorrectness 
and  this  injustice,  not  to  any  injurious  intention,  but  to  that 
habit  of  thinking  and  feeling  of  whicli  I  have  before  taken  no- 
tice;  yet  after  what  I  have  now  stated,  I  think  I  have  a  right  to 
call  upon  jou,—and  I  do  solenmly  call  upon  you,  to  retract  this 
flagrant  misstatement.  I  know  indeed,  you  have  given  it  to 
be  understood,  that  you  shall  not  write  again;  but.  Sir,  the 
publick  disputant  who  makes  this  resolve  ouglit  to  be  careful, 
not  merely,  not  to  "put  down  ought  in  malice,"  but  to  write 
nothing  wliich  justice  to  his  opponent  and  to  the  cause  of 
truth,— nothing  wliich  the  sacred  principles  of  Christianity 
will  require  him  to  retract. 

It  is  upon  the  ground  of  this  incorrect  and  injurious  state- 
ment, that  you  have  founded  the  earnest  and  impassioned 
appeal,  in  which  you  seem  to  have  put  forth  all  your  powers 
of  rhetorick,  and  by  which  you  evidently  designed  to  make 
your  grand  and  decisive  impression  against  me.  But  as  the 
ground  is  removed,  the  whole  splendid  shew  must  dissolve, 
<<like  the  baseless  fabrick  of  a  vision." — As  to  what  you  say, 
in  this  connexion,  with  reference  to  my  statement,  that  "the 
Saviour  whom  you  acknowledge  is  infinitely  inferiour  to 
ours,"  a  very  brief  remark  may  be  sufficient.  I  did  suppose 
4 


25 

you  would  yet  acknowledge  JESUS  CHRIST  to  bcTonr 
SAVIOUR.  Yoiii'  declaration,  however,  if  it  has  any 
pcrtincnc}',  plainly  imports  that  you  do  not.  How  can  you 
then  sit  down  at  his  table  in  commun-ion  with  those  who  do 
acknowk'dge  him  as  their  SAVIOUR,— and  who  with  undis- 
scmblcd  gratitude  and  devotion  unite  in  the  holy  ascrip- 
tion,— Unto  HIM  that  loved  its,  and  washed  nsfrom  our  sins  in 
his  orvn  bloody  and  hath  made  ns  kings  and  pnests  unto  God  and 
his  Father;  to  him  be  glory  and  dominion  for  ever  and 
EviiK.  We  worship,  Sir,  THE  FATHER,  SON,  AND 
HOLY  (iHOST.     Do  you  worship  this  same  GOD? 

You  '^did  look"  to  me,  you  are  pleased  to  say,  "for  a 
healing  sj)irit."  Happy,  iivdeed  will  lie  bo,  wha  shall  be  in- 
strumental in  "raising  up  the  Inundations  of  many  genera- 
tions," and  justly  "be  called,  The  I'cpairer  of  the  breach. 
The  restorer  of  jjaths  to  dwell  in."  But  wo  to  him,  who 
would  "ileal  tlie  hurt  slightly,  sayings  Peace,  peace,  when 
there  is  no  peace!"  Few  tnen  can  have  gi'eater  iBduccments> 
than  I  have,  to  listen  to  the  enchanting^  vor<:e  of  peace;  few 
could  have  engaged  in  this  controversy  with  greater  reluc- 
tance, or  have  brought  to  it  greater  heaviness  and  sorrow  of 
heai't. — But  the  servants  of  him  who  endured  the  cross,  de- 
spising the  sJiaine^  must  not  confer  ^^ith  flesh  and  blood:  must 
never  forget  the  solemn  declaration.  He  that  loveth  father  or 
mother  more  than  me  is  not  tvorthy  of  me;  and  he  that  loveth 
son  or  daughter  more  than  ine  is  not  'worthy  of  me;  and  h^ 
that  takctli  not  his  cross  andfoUoxveth  after  me  is  not  worthy 
»f  mc. 

You  charge  me  with  "studiously  magnifying  the  diflfereH- 
ces"  between  orthodox  Cinistians  and  Unitarians;  and 
with  "studiously  overlooking  the  points  of  agreement." 
There  is  certaiidy  no  occasion  to  magnify  the  differences; 
tliey  are  in  themselves  sufliciently  great.  To  me,  howevciv 
it  has  appeared  vastly  important,  that  people  should  "learn 
tlier  distinction  between  Trinitarianism  and  Unitarianism." 
This  you  recommend  in  your  "Notej"  and  in  this  recommenda- 
tion I  cordially  join.  Upon  this,  however,  you  jn-oceed  to  some 
discussion,  as  if  with  a  design  to  shew  the  "distinction;"  and 
yon  finally    leprescnt  it  as  being  little,  if  any  thing  more 


fir 

tlian  a  mere  «souxd."  Elsewhere,  also,  you  si)eak  ot  it  us 
being  only  a  "difference  w  Iiich  relates  to  the  obscurest  of  all 
subjects,  to  the  essence  and  metapbysical  nature  of  God.'* 
And  throug-Iioiit  both  your  Letter  and  your  Remarks  you 
seem  to  have  laJboured,  assiduously,  to  conceal  the  points  of 
difference  betweeen  us,  and  to  make  the  impression  that  tbese 
points  are  few  and  of  very  little  importance.  This  mode  of 
treating  the  subject  appears  to  me  exceedingly  imi)ropep,  and 
of  most  deceptive  tendency.  Is  this  the  way,  Sir,  to  pro- 
mote the  knowledge  of  truth?  Is  it  thus  that  you  would  con- 
duct "that  candid  and  impartial  research,"  which  accordinj; 
to  your  Letter,  is  to  «*guide  mankind  to  a  purer  system  of 
Christianity,  than  is  now  to  be  found  in  any  church  under 
Heaven,"— and  to  b^'ing  about  a  ^'glorious  reformation  of  the 
church  of  God?'' 

In  opposition  to  this  system  of  concealment,  I  have  tliought 
it  rigbt  and  important  to  endeavour  a  developement,  and  to 
lay  the  differences  between  us  open  to  the  publick  in  their 
true  light.  On  our  part  we  have  no  dread  of  tliis^  no  dread 
of  a  clear  and  full  developement.  It  has  long  been  our  earnest 
desire,  tUat  your  sentiments  as  well  as  ours,  might  be  known; 
and  that  all  christians  and  all  people  might  well  understand 
the  points  oii  which  you  differ  from  us.  Un  this  account  w<' 
devoutly  rejoice  that  the  subject  has  been  brought  before  the 
publick.  In  our  vicv, ,  it  has  come  forward  in  a  way  to  an- 
swer an  impiu'tant  purpose.  A  '^general  discussion"  of  the 
differences  between  us,  w  ould  have  been  o^  little  avail,  while 
people  were  utterly  unapprised  that  such  differences  really 
existed,  and  v.ere  fast  asleep  in  regard  to  them.  It  was  first 
of  all  desirable  that  tlicse  differences  should  be  disclosed; 
that  people  sliould  be  made  to  see  them  to  be  not  imaginary, 
but  real;  not  of  trivial  consequence,  but  of  essential  impor- 
tance; and  that  their  attention  would  be  strongly  dra^\n  to 
them^ 

It  was  under  impressions  of  this  kitid,  that  I  was  induced 
to  make  the  statements,  exhibited  in  my  former  Letter;  and 
under  the  same  impressions,  I  now  proceed  to  a  still  mor* 
ilistiiict  and  detailed  statement. 


58 

Ortliodox  christians  hokl,  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  were  given  by  inspiration  of  God;  and 
i/uit  all  tvldch  they  contain  is  to  be  received  as  truths  on  the 
AUTHORITY  OF  GoD. — Biit  by  the  principal  Unitarian  wri- 
ters, and,  so  far  as  is  known,  by  Unitarians  generally,  the 
plenary  inspiration  of  the  scriptures  is  denied.     "The  scrip- 
tures," says  Dr,  Priestley,*  "were  written  without  any  par-^ 
ticular  inspiration^  by  men  who  wrote  according  to  the  best 
of  their  knowledge,  and  who,  from  their  circumstances,  could 
not  be  mistaken,  with  regard  to  the  greater  facts  of  which 
tliey  were  projjcrly  m  itnessesj  but  (like  otlier  men  subject  to 
prejudice)  might  be  liable  to  adopt  a  hasty  and  ill  grounded 
opinion,  concerning  things  \slii(  h  did  not  fall  within  the  com- 
pass of  their  own  knowledge,  and  which  had  no  connexion 
with  any  thing  that  was  so.     We  ought  all  of  us,  therefore, 
to  consider  ourselves  fully   at  liberty  to  examine,  with  thei 
greatest  rigour,  both  the  reasonings  of  the  writers,  and  thQ 
facts   of   which  we  lind    any    account    in    their   writings; 
that,  judging  by  the  eui.es  of  just  criticism,  we  may 
distinguish  what  may  be   depended  on  from  what  may  not.^' 
Mr.  Belsham  says,f  "The  scriptures  contain  a  faithful  and 
ci'cdible  account  of  the  christian  doctrine^  which  is  the  true 
word  of  God;  but  they  arc  not  themselves  the  word  of  God, 
nor  did  they  ever  assume  that  title;  and  it  is  highly  improj)er 
to  speak  of  them  as  such;  as  it  leads  inattentive  I'eadcrs  to 
suppose  tlicy  were  written  under  a  plenary  inspiration,  to 
which  they  make  no  pretension;  and  as  such  expressions  ex- 
pose Christianity,  unnecessarily,  to  the  cavils  of  unbelievers.":^ 

*  History  of  Early  Opinions,  vol.  iv,  p.  5. 

■}■  Kcview  of  VVilberforce,  p.  19. 

■4  "Perhaps  I  m:iy  be  charged  -with  liaving  made  a  distinction  in  this  place, 
■^hich  gives  an  unfair  represeiitalion  of  Unitarians,  inasniBch  as  they  aho profesn 
to  derive  their  argunienis  fi'oni  scripture.  But  whether  that  prolession  be  not 
intended  in  nioikcry,  one  might  be  almost  temirted  to  question;  wlien  it  is  found 
(hat  in  every  instance,  the  doctrine  of  scriptui'e  is  tried  by  their  abstract  notion 
ofrijiht,  and  rejected  if  not  acconlant: — when  by  means  of  figure  and  allusion,  it 
is  every  where  made  to  speak  a  language  the  most  rei)Ugnanl  to  ail  fair,  critical 
interpretation;  until  en)j)tied  of  its  true  mcanii  g,  it  is  converted  intp  a  vehicle 
for  every  fantastick  theory,  vhich  under  the  name  of  rational,  they  may  think 
proper  to  ado|)t: — when  in  such  parts  as  projKwnd  gospel  truths  of  a  contexture 
ion  solid  to  admit  of  wn  escape  in  fit^Uic  and  allubion,  the  satied  writers  ate  chaiged 


29 

Though  all  Unitarians  may  not  be  ready  fully  to  adopt  the 
language  or  the  sentiments  on  this  subject  of  Dr.  Priestley, 
Mr.  Belsham,  or  others,  mentioned  in  the  note  below^  yet 
I  believe  very  few,  if  any  of  them,  admit  the  plenary  in- 
spiration of  the  scriptures.  But,  Sir,  if  the  plenary  inspira- 
tion of  the  scriptures  be  denied,  where  shall  we  stop?  How 
shall  we  determine  what  is  the  word  of  God,  and  what  is 
not?   What  other  test,  or  criterion,  of  truth  have  we,  than 

REASON? 

Accordingly  the  Unitarians  very  generally  seem  to  have 
adopted  "the  fundamental  rule"  of  the  old  Socinians,  "That  no 
doctrine  ought  to  be  acknowledged  as  true  in  its  nature,  or 
divine  in  its  origin,  all  whose  ])arts  are  not  level  to  the  com- 
prehension of  the  human  understandings  and  that,  wliateA'^er 
the  Holy  Scriptures  teach  concerning  the  perfections  of  God, 
his  counsels  and  decrees,  and  the  way  of  salvation,  must  l>c 
modified,  curtailed,  and  filed  down,  in  such  a  manner,  by  the 
transforming  power  of  art  and  argument,  as  to  answer  the 
extent  of  our  limited  faculties."*  That  this  is  the  principle, 
and  this  the  labour  of  Unitarians,  no  one  who  is  conversant 

as  bunglers,  producing  "laine  accounts,  improper  quolalions,  and  inconclusive  rea- 
sonings," (Dr.  Priestley's  Villi  Letter  to  JMr.  Burn  J  and  pliiloscpliy  is  conse- 
quently called  in  to  rectify  their  errors: — when  one  writer  of  this  class  (Stein- 
liart)  tells  us,  that  "the  narrations,"  (in  the  New  Testament)  "true  or  false,  are 
only  suited  for  ignorant,  uncultivatetl  minds,  who  cannot  enter  into  the  evidence 
of  natural  religion;"  and  again,  that  "Aloses,  according  to  tht-  childisii  conceptions 
of  the  Jews  in  his  days,  paints  God  as  agitated  by  violent  affections,  partial  to 
one  people,  and  hating  all  other  nations:" — when  another,  (Scmler)  remarking 
on  St.  Peter's  declaration,  that  prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of  man, 
tilt  Hoiy  men  of  God  spake  us  they  -were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  says,  that 
♦'Peter  speaks  here  according  to  the  conception  of  the  Jews,"  and  that  "the 
prophets  may  have  delivered  the  offspring  of  their  own  brains  as  divine  revela- 
tions:"("i^)*.  Erskiiie's  Sketclies  and  Hints  of  Ch.  Hist.  No  3,  pp.  06,  71.) — when 
si^  third  (Eiigedin)  speaks  of  St.  John's  portion  of  the  New  Testament,  as  written 
•with  "concise  and  abrupt  obscurity,  inconsistent  with  itself,  and  made  up  of  alle- 
gories;" and  Gagneius  glories  in  having  given  "a  little  light  to  St.  I'aul's  darkness, 
a  darkness,  as  some  think,  industriously  affected:" — when  we  find  JVIr.  Evan.'^ou, 
one  of  those  able  commentators  referred  to  by  Mr.  Belsham  in  his  Jieview,  kc. 
p.  20G:  assert,  (~ nisso7iancc,  k.(i.  p.  i,)  that  "the  evangelical  liistories  contain 
gross  and  irreconcileable  contrailiclion,"  and  consequently  dij.card  three  out  of  the 
four,  retaining  the  gospel  of  St.  Luke  only,  at  the  same  time  drawing  his  pen  over 
as  much  of  this,  as  either  from  its  ivftlicity  of  style,  or  otlier  such  causes  liappens 
not  to  meet  his  approbation."  Magee  on  Alonvincut,  A'otcs,  J\'o.  14. 
*  Mosheirn's  Ecel.  Hist,  Cent.  10.  cliap.  4. 


Y  itli  their  writin.E^s  can  doubt.  Deii}  in  j^thc  ])lcnary  infspiratioi* 
of  the  sciiptui'cs,  they  hokl  themselves  at  liberty  to  subject 
those  sacred  writings  to  all  the  torture  of  the  most  rigoi'ous 
criticism;  not  for  the  purpose  merely  of  deciding  upon  ''vari- 
ous readings,"  of  elucidating  obscure  passages  by  reference 
to  ancient  customs  and  manners,  or  of  ascertaining  the  true 
meaning  of  the  original  words,  and  their  most  natural  sense 
in  the  connexions  in  wiiich  they  occur;  but  for  the  purpose 
especially,  of  explaining  the  different  parts  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  make  them  yield  a  meaning  coufoi'mable  to  their  views 
of  w  hat  is  rational.  In  this  migiity  w  ork  human  reason  ap- 
pears in  all  its  pride,  and  tlic  w isdoni  of  this  world  in  its 
highest  gloi-y. 

Here  is  the  primary  point  of  difference  between  orthodox 
christians  and  Unitarians.  The  ortiiodox,  holding  the  Bible 
to  be  tlic  word  of  the  living  God,  feel  tlicmselves  warranted 
and  bound  to  embrace  as  divine  truth,  every  doctiine  which 
they  find  revealed  in  that  sacred  volume,  however  humbling 
to  reason  it  may  be,  however  mysterious  and  incomprehensi- 
ble. But  tlic  Unitarians,  regarding  the  Bible  in  a  very  dif- 
ferent light,  are  not  restrained  from  using  greater  liberties 
with  it;  arc  not  restrained  from  rejecting  sucli  doctrines,  as 
transcend  the  cou'prehension  of  their  own  understandings, 
or  do  n  >t  comp»)rt  with  their  views  of  what  is  rational;  but 
glory  in  excluding  all  mystery  from  religion.  Hence  the 
name  which  they  assume  of  rational  ciiuistiaxs;  and 
hence  the  imposing  superiority  which  they  affect  over  those, 
w  ho  understand  the  scriptures  in  their  natural  and  obvious 
sense,  and  believe  in  doctrines  confessedly  beyond  the  powers 
of  the  human  mind  to  comprehend. 

On  tlic  authority  of  the  scriptures,  orthodox  christians  be- 
lieve that  the  one  Jehovah  exists  in  a  Trinity,  called  the 
Father,  the  Son,  a)id  the  Holy  Spirit.  These  we  call  three 
jpersons;  because  we  have  no  better  word  by  w Inch  to  denote 
the  distinction;  and  because  tuey  apply  to  each  other  t\i& 
personal  pi-onouns  /,  Thou,  and  He.  and  to  ///fju.st'/rfs  together, 
the  plurids  we,  ns.  and  our.  This  'I'rinily  in  the  Godhead 
we  acknowledge  to  be  a  mystery,  which  we  pi-ctend  not  to 
coinprehejid,  and  width  we  would  not  undertake  to  explain. 


31 


So  too  tiie  eternal  existence  of  God,  in  any  mode,  is  to  us  a 
mystery;  his  omnipresence  is  a  mystery;  his  omniscience  is 
a  mystery;  liis  creating  all  things  out  of  nothing  by  the  word 
of  his  power,  is  a  mystery.  We  find  mysteries,  indeed,  in  all 
his  perfections  and  works;  mysteries  in  natural  religion,  as 
well  as  in  revealed;  mysteries  in  every  thing  around  us,  as 
uttei'ly  beyond  our  powers  to  explain  or  comprehend,  as 
that  of  the  Trinity  in  the  Godhead. 

We  believe  this  doctrine,  because  we  find  it  in  those  scrip- 
tures, which  we  receive  as  given  by  divine  inspiration.  In 
the  scriptures,  tlie  original  Hebrew  name,  by  which  th» 
Supreme  Being  is  most  commonly  called,  is  plural:  [Jleinif 
Gods.]  Incoincidence  with  this  plural  name,  other  plural  words 
are  used.  *'Let  us  make  man  in  our  07vn  image.'*  **Behol(l 
the  man  has  become  as  o.ve  0/ us."  '»r/ie  knowledge  of  the 
Holy  (in  the  original  the  Holy  Oxes)  is  understanding.'^ 
t*Remember  now  thy  Creator  (original  Creators)  in  the 
days  of  thy  youth.''  Tliis  remarkable  use  of  plurals,  which 
runs  tlirough  tlie  Hebrew  scriptures,  we  think  clearly  denotes 
a  plurality  of  what,  as  1  before  observed,  we  call  persons* 
Yet  we  read,  **IIear  0  Israel,  Jehovah  our  God  (our  Meinif 
Gods)  is  oxe  Jehovah;"  and  of  the  unity  of  God  we  find  in 
the  scriptures  abundant  proof.  To  eacli  of  tiie  Holy  Ones, 
however,  to  the  Father,  to  the  Son,  and  to  the  Spirit,  the 

scriptures  ascribe  divine  names  and  titles, — divine  attributes, 

diviii£  works, — and  divine  honours.  Tlie  proofs  of  all  tliis 
are  so  abundant  and  so  memorable,  that  for  my  present  pur- 
pose it  is  not  necessary  to  cite  even  a  specimen.  Each  of 
the  three,  therefore,  we  believe  to  be  ti-uly  and  essentially 
DIVINE,  and  all  of  them  equal  in  dignity  and  glory. 

But  this  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  the  Unitarians  utterly 
deny:  not  because  thei-e  is  no  proof  of  it  in  tl;e  scriptures; 
but  because  it  is  a  doctrine,  (as  you  repeatedly  and  emphati- 
cally pronounce  in  your  Letter  arul  Remarks,)  <'perplexuig," 
*<mysterious,"  and  not  to  be  "'understood.'' 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  we  liold  to  be  important,  fun- 
damentally important,  in  relation  especially  to  the  general 
doctrine  of  redemption  and  salvation  revealed  in  the  gospel. 
In  the  gospel,  the  Son,  Jesus  t.'iu-ist  is  revealed  as  our  Re- 


dc^mer  and  Saviour;  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  our  Sanctificr  and 
Comlortcr.  But  who  is  Jesus  Christ,  and  who  is  the  Holy 
Spirit?  AVith  what  feelings  and  alfections,  with  what  expec- 
tations and  hopes,  with  what  kind  and  degree  of  reverence 
and  confidence,  is  it  suitable  that  we  should  regard  the  one 
and  the  other?  What  is  the  nature,  and  what  the  extent  of  tlie 
work  which  they  severally  pciform  for  us?  and  what  tho 
nature,  and  tike  extent  of  our  obligations  to  them?  These  are 
most  interesting  questions:  questions  not  merely  of  a  specu- 
lative nature,  but  of  the  first  practical  concernment,  of  the 
very  highest  religious  importance.  But  by  each  of  these 
questions  we  are  directly  referred  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity;  and  to  each  of  them  infinitely  different  answers  will 
be  given,  by  those  who  believe,  and  tiiose  who  disbelieve, 
this  doctrine. 

Who  then  is  Jesus  Christ?  The  apostle  John  in  the  first  of 
his  gospel,  says,  <*lsr  the  ueginnixg  was  the  Word, 
and  the  iVord  was  with  Godf  and  the  Word  was  God.  An. 

THINGS  WERE  MADE  BY  HiM,  AND  WITHOUT  HiM  WA3 
NOT    Ax\Y    THING    MADE    THAT  WAS  MADE."      In  tllC  close  of 

his  first  Epistle,  he  says  "This  is  the  true  God,  and 
eternal  life.  St.  Paul  also  speaks  of  "our  great  God  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ;"  calls  Him,  "God  over  all  bles- 
8  5-d  forevermore;"  and  says  tliat  *'all  things  were  made  bt 
Him  and  for  Him."  Language  of  similar  impoil  is  familiar 
to  the  sacred  writers;  who  as  before  intimated,  most  abun- 
dantly and  expressly  ascribe  to  Jesus  Christ  divine  names, 
titles,  attributes,  works,  and  honours.  Upon  authority  such 
as  this,  we  beli.'ve  that  the  Son  is  essentially  divine, — essen- 
tially equal  to  the  Father. — And  believing  this,  we  feel  our- 
selves warranted  and  bound  to  regard  Him  witli  all  the  feel- 
ings and  affections,  hopes  and  expectations,  reverence  and 
confidence,  which  a  Saviour  of  infinite  perfections,  of  illimi- 
table riches  of  grace  and  of  glory,  can  inspire  or  claim.  The 
scriptures,  however,  teach  us  further,  that  the  same  "Word," 
— who  "was  in  the  beginning  with  God  and  was  God," — o^was 
made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  ws;"  that  "He  took  on  him  the 
seed  of  Abraham," — "wa.s  made  of  a  woman,  made  under 
the  law;"'  that  though  being  in  the  form  of  God,  lie  timighf. 


U  not  robbery  to  be  ec^ual  with  God;  yet  he  made  himself  of 
no  rejnttatiorif  and  took  upon  Him  the  form  or  a  servant, 
AND  was  made  in  THE  LIKENESS  OF  MEN;  and  being 
found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled  himself,  and  became 
obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  tlie  cross,'*  We  therefor* 
believe  that,  in  the  person  of  tiie  Son,  God  was  manifest  in 
THE  FLESH,  in  our  own  nature;  that,  in  the  person  of  Jesus 
Christ,  God  and  man  were  united.  And  here  we  see  a  foun- 
dation for  all  that  is  said  in  the  scriptures,  importifi,^  an  inc-* 
quality  of  the  Son  to  the  Fathei*.  Tlic  Son  was  subordinate 
to  the  Father  in  o^ce,  as  he  was  pleased  to  take  upon  him 
the  form  of  a  servant;  and  he  was  inferiour  to  the  Father  in 
respect  of  his  human  nature.  Viewing  Him,  tlien,  in  his  two 
natures,  divine  and  human,  we  see  a  perfect  consistency,  in 
Ills  being  represented,  as  he  is  in  tlie  scriptures,  both  as  God 
and  man,  as  essentially  equal  to  the  Father,  and  yet  in  other 
respects  unequal.  Tliis  union,  again,  we  acknowledge  to  be 
a  mystery,  which  we  pretend  not  to  comprehend;  but  as  we 
find  it  revealed  in  the  word  of  God,  we  feel  ourselves  bound 
to  believe  it,  as  a  most  iiiteresting  and  important  truth. 

But  this  doctrine  also  the  Unitarians  deny.  Tliey  deny 
the  true  divinity  of  the  Son,  Jesus  Christ;  and  hold  him  to 
be  a  mere  creature;  some  of  them,  a  creature  of  more  than 
angelick  dignity;  others,  no  more  than  a  mere  man.  The 
Saviour's  divinity,  however,  as  must  appear  from  the  brief 
statement  now  made,  is  denied,  not  because  there  is  no  proof 
of  it  in  the  scriptures,  understood  in  their  most  obvious  and 
liarmonious  sense;  but  because,  like  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity of  which  it  is  a  branch,  and  with  which  it  must  stand  or 
fall,  it  involves  mysteries  which  the  human  understanding 
cannot  explain  or  comprehend,  and  which,  therefore,  accord- 
ing to  the  leading  canon  of  Unitarian  criticism,  before  cited, 
are  not  to  be  received  as  truth.* 

,  *  Upon  the  words  of  (uu-  Saviour,  John  vl,  62.  "IVhat  and  if  ye  shall  see  the 
Son  of  man  ascend  up  xuhere  he  ivas  before."  Di-.  Prieilley,  remarks,  "Though 
not  satisfied  with  any  interpretation  tliat  has  been  given  of  this  extraordinary  pas- 
sage, yet  rather  than  believe  our  Saviour  to  have  existed  in  any  otlier  stale  before 
the  creation  of  the  world,  or  to  liave  left  some  stale  of  great  chgniiy  and  happi- 
ness when  he  came  hitiier,  lie  ivouldhave  reconrs-j  to  the  old  and  exploded  Socin- 
-lan  idea  of  Christ's  actual  ascent  into  heaven,  or  of  his  imagining  ihat  he  had  be<»n 
5 


Jesus  Christ  is  revealed  as  our  Redeemer  and  Saviour, 
But  what  is  the  nature,  and  what  t!ie  extent  of  his  woi-k,  in 
these  interesting  characters?  According  to  the  scriptures,  He 
is  **the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  six  of  the 
tvorUV  His  ^'fenh  was  given  for  the  life  of  the  world;'* — 
his  '"blood  7vas  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins." 
He  "Wfts  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many."  He  *'-ivas 
made  a  cfrse  for  rs,  and  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body 
ON  the  tree.  He  '•"was  delivered  for  our  offences, 
and  raised  again  for  our  justification."  «/yj  him  we 
hare  redemption  through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness 
OF  SINS  according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace."  He 
*'gave  himself  for  ns,  an  offering  and  a  sacrifice  to 
God."  *'lZe  appeared  to  pnt  axvay  sin  by  the  sacrifice 
of  himself;" — and  he  is  the  propitiation,  the  expiatory 
sacrifice,  for  our  sins,  and  not  for  ours  only^  but  also  for 
the  sins  of  the  whole  world."  "./Vo^  by  the  blood  of  goats 
and  calves,  but  by  iiis  own  blood,  he  entered  in  once  into  the 
holy  place,  having  obtained  eternal  redemption  for 
us;"  wlierefore  <»he  is  able  to  save  them  to  the  ut- 
termost that  came  unto  God  by  Him,  seeing  he  ever  liveth 
to  make  intercession  for  them."  ^-Tids  is  the  stove 
which  was  set  at  nought  of  you  builders,  which  is  become  t/ie 
head  of  the  corner.  Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any 
other;  for  there  is  none  other  name  under  heav- 
en given  among  men  whereby  we  must  be  saved." 
In  these.  Sir,  and  the  passages  to  tlu*  same  effect  with  which 
the  scriptures  abound,  we  see  the  foundation  of  all  our  liopes 
for  eternity.  This  foundation  is  Jesus  Christ — Jesus  Christ 
CRUCIFIED.  Upon  this  divine  testimony,  so  explicit  and  so 
abundant,  we  believe  that  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ  was  a 
vicarious  atonement,  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  sin:  and  that 

carried  up  thithei"  in  a  vision;  which  like  that  of  St.  Paul,  he  had  not  been  able  to 
distinffxdsh  from  a  reality;  nay,  he  would  not  build  an  article  of  faith,  of  such  mag- 
nitude on  tlie  correctness  of  John's  recollection  and  representation  of  our  Lord^s 
language;  and  so  strange  and  incredible  does  Uie  hypolhisis  of  a  pre-exislent 
state  apiiear,  that  sooner  than  admit  it,  he  -wciuld  sitp/iose  the  xuhole  verse  to  he 
an  interpolation,  or  that  thl  old  apostle  dictatek  one  thing  and  his 
AMANUENSIS  WKOTE  ASOTUEii."  Letters  to  Dr.  Price^  as  quoted  by  Dr. 
Magee. 


35 

in  liim  we  have  redemption,  tlie  forgiveness  of  sins,  and 
solely  on  account  of  the  merits  of  his  hlood. 

Connected  with  this  doctrine  of  atonement,  and  founded 
upon  it,  is  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  The  whole 
is  presented  in  one  concise  view,  in  the  third  of  Romans. 
"Now  we  know  that  what  thing's  soever  the  law  saith,  it 
saith  to  them  that  are  under  the  law,  tliat  every  mouth  may 
he  stopped,  and  all  the  world  become  guilty  before  God,  There- 
fore    BY     THE     DEEDS      OF     THE     LAW,    THERE     SHALL     XO 

FLESH  BE  JUSTIFIED  ill  Ms  sight;  foF  by  the  law  is  the 
knowledge  of  sin.  But  now  the  nghteousness  of  God  without 
the  law  is  manifested,  being  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the 
prophets;  even  the  righteousness  of  God,  which  is  by  faith  of 
Jesus  Christ  unto  all  and  upon  all  them  that  believe;  for 
there  is  no  difference: /or  all  have  sinned  and  come  short  of  the 
glory  of  God:  being  justifed  freely  of  his  grace,  through 

THE     REDEMPTION     THAT     IS     IN     ChRIST     JeSUS,     WHOM 

God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiatiojv  through 
FAITH  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness,  for  the 
remission  of  sins  that  are  past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God; 
to  declare,  I  say,  at  this  time  his  nghteousness;  that  he 
might  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  which  be- 
iiEVETH  in  Jesus. 

But  all  tiiis  is  denied  by  Unitarians.  I  do  not  mean  that 
tliey  utterly  discard  and  would  obliterate  the  sacred  passages 
here  cited,  and  all  others  of  similar  import;  but,  comforma- 
hly  to  the  rule  and  the  practice  of  the  Polish  Unitarians,  as 
before  quoted  from  Mosheim,  "they  modify,  curtail,  and  file 
down"  these  passages,  or  the  momentous  doctrine  contained 
in  them,  "in  such  a  manner,  by  the  transforming  power  of 
art  and  argument,  as  to  answer  the  extent  of  their  limited 
faculties."  The  doctrine  of  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  by 
Christ's  deatli,  of  redemption  through  his  blood,  of  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  and  justification  on  account  of  his  vicarious 
merits  they  reject,  as  unreasonable  in  itself,  inconsistent  with 
tlie  goodness  of  God,  and  derogatory  to  the  cliaracter  of  man. 
— "Christ  being  a  man,"  says  Dr.  Priestley,*  "who  suffered 
jind  died  in  the  best  of  causes,  there  is  nothing  so  rery  differ- 

*  Theol.  Rep.  vol.  i,  p.  39. 


S6 

entiii  the  occasion  and  manner  of  his  death,  from  that  of  others 
ivJio  suffered  and  died  after  him  in  the  same  cause  of  chris^ 
tianitij,  but  that  their  sufferings  and  death  may  be  consider- 
ed in  the  same  light  with  his.-'  Again  he  says,*  "Re- 
pentance and  a  good  life  are  of  themselves  sufficient  to  re- 
commend lis  to  the  divine  favour."  "In  this,"  then  he  says 
again,!  (that  is  in  the  notion  that  Christ's  death  had  no  re- 
lation to  the  forgiveness  of  sins)  "Let  us  acquiesce,  not 
douhting  but  that,  though  not  perhaps  at  present,  we  shall  in 
time  be  able,  witiiout  any  effort  or  straixixg,  to  explain 
all  particular  expressions  in  the  Apostf)lical  Epistles:"  a 
plain  confession,  that  it  is  not  without  <^*cffort  and  straining'* 
that  the  scriptures  are  now  accommodated  to  the  Unitarian 
doctrine.  "AVhen,  (says  Mrs.  Barhauld,:j:)  will  christians  per- 
mit themselves  to  believe,  that  the  same  conduct  wliich  gains 
them  the  approbation  of  good  men  here,  will  secure  the 
favour  of  heaven  hereafter? — When  a  man,  like  Dr.  Price, 
is  about  to  resign  his  soul  into  the  hands  of  his  Maker,  he 
ought  to  do  it  not  only  \\ith  a  reliance  on  his  mercy,  but 
li.s  Justice.  It  does  not  become  him  to  pay  the  blasphemous 
homage  of  deprecating  the  wrath  of  God,  when  he  ought  to 
throw  himself  into  the  arms  of  his  love!" — "Other  foundation 
can  no  man  lay:"  (says  Dr.  IIar\vood,§  as  if  with  an  express 
design  to  contradict  an  apostle.)  "All  hopes  founded  upon 
any  thing  else  than  a  good  moral  life,  arc  merely  imaginary!" 
"There  can  be  no  proper  foundation,"  says  Mr.  Bclsliam,|| 
"for  religious  address  to  him,  [Christ]  nor  of  gratitude  to 
him  for  favours  now  received,  nor  of  confidence  in  Ids  future 
interpositions  in  our  belialf!"  It  were  easy  to  fill  many 
pages  with  passages  to  this  general  effect,  selected  from  the 
writings  of  L  nitaiians. 

Concerning  the  Holy  Spiiit,  my  limits  do  not  allow  me  to  be 
particular.  Suffice  it  to  say,  thatw  hile  orthodox  christians  be- 
lieve that  He,  like  the  Father  and  the  So)i,  is  truly  and  essen- 
tially divine, — and  that  all  which  is  truly  holy  ami  virtuous  in 
any  of  mankind  in  to  be  ascribed  to  his  sovereign  and  gracious 

•  Flistof  Con-up.  r  f  Chrisliauitv,  vol.  i,  p.  155.         fThcol  Kcp.  vol.  i,  p.  21^ 
:f  Remarks  on  AVaktfield.  f  Sornions,  as  (iv.olti]  by  Dr.  Fuller. 

li  Review  of  W'ilberforfc. 


agency;  both  the  one  and  the  otlier  of  these  doctrines  are  de- 
nied by  Unitarians.  "In  popular  language,  says  Mr.  Bel- 
sham,*  the  virtuous  affoctinns  of  virtuous  men,  are,  with 
great  propriety-  ascribed  to  God;  and  the  pious  wTiters  of  the 
scriptures  have  often  adopted  this  form  of  expression. 
Whether  they  thenisehes  b/iievcd  in  the  existence  of  fre- 
quent and  supernatural  impi-essions  upon  the  mind,  does  not 
clearly  appear;  and  it  is  certain  that  they  m  where  affirm  tlmt 
it  constituted  any  part  of  their  commission,  to  teach  this  extka- 

OEDIXAKT    VXD   IMPROBABLE  DOCTRIXE." 

I  mean  not,  Sii-,  to  say  or  to  intimate,  that  you,  or  any  of 
your  liberal  brethren  here  would  adopt  all  tlie  expressions  or 
all  the  sentiments  now  cited  from  Unitarian  writers.  I  know 
that  Unitarianism  has  its  degrees  and  diversities,  and  is  a 
variable  and  mutable  thing.  Dr.  Priestley  says  of  himself, 
tljat  he  was  once  "a  Calvinist  and  tiiat  of  the  straitest  sect;" 
that  afterwards  he  "became  an  high  Ai'ian,  and  in  a  little 
time  a  Socinian  of  the  lowest  kind,  in  whicii  Christ  is  consid- 
ered as  a  mere  man,  the  Son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  natur- 
ally as  fallible  and  peccable  as  Moses  or  any  other  prophet:" 
and  even  then  he  wished  it  to  be  understood,  that  he  did  "'not 
know  when  his  creed  would  be  fixed."  It  is  easier  and  safer 
to  say  what  Unitai-ians  do  not  believe,  than  what  they  do. 
The  sentiments  however,  here  exhibited,  in  contrast  with  or- 
thodox doctrines,  ai-e  Unitarian;  ajid  it  is  not  to  be  forgot- 
ten that  we  are  required  to  hold  in  christian  fellowship, 
those  Unitarians  wlio  go  to  all  these  lengths  as  well  as  those 
who  do  not. 

My  design  in  the  sketch  now  given,  was  not  to  go  into  a 
defence  of  the  doctrines  called  orthodox,  or  into  a  refutation 
of  the  Unitarian  s} stem;  (a  design  which  I  am  fully  aMarc 
would  require  a  volume  rather  than  a  pamphlet:)  but  to  c.\- 
hibit  in  a  more  specifick  and  connected  manner  than  I  had  be- 
fore done,  some  of  the  principal  points  of  diffei-ence  between 
these  two  classes;  and  to  piTsent  a  summary  view  of  the 
grounds  on  whicli  they  respectively  stand. 

Now,  Sir,  are  tliese  differences  inconsiderable  and  nnim- 
poitant?  And  is  it  proper  to  repi-esent  them  as  consisting  only 

*  K(.\ie\v  of  AVilbevforte,  p.  78. 


in  a  <'metai)l»ysical"  point,  or  a  mere  <<soinKl?" — If  the  scrip- 
tures entire  were  given  by  insjjiration  of  God,  and  oiiglit  to  be 
received  with  all  rcvei'ence  and  huiniiity,  as  having  his  seal  to 
all  the  doctrines  which  they  teach,  as  well  as  to  all  the  pre- 
cepts w  liich  they  inculcate,-  is  it  a  light  thing  to  deny  them 
this  supreme  authority,  and  to  subject  them  to  the  test  of  fee- 
ble, erring  reason,  and  to  the  ordeal  of  arrogant,  pliilo- 
sophical  criticism?*  If  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  reveal- 
ed in  the  word  of  God;  if  it  rests  on  the  sure  foundation  of 
divine  testimony;  is  it  a  light  thing  to  reject  this  doctrine, 
because  it  transcends  the  liuiited  faculties  of  the  human 
mind;  and  to  pronounce  it  irrational  and  absurd,  because  we 
cannot  compreliend  it?  Though  we  cannot  by  seai'ching  find 
out  God  unto  perfection;  yet  may  we  not  assuredly  believe  that 
He  knows  himself,  and  the  mode  of  his  own  existence?  and 
may  we  not  safely  rely  on  what  he  reveals  respecting  himself, 
though  there  be  something  relating  to  it,  and  beyond  it, 
which  we  cannot  understand?  If  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  and 
essentially  divine,  and  all  men  are  required  to  <*/iO)iOMr  the 
Son,  even  as  they  honour  the  Father;'"  is  it  a  light  thing  to  deny 
Lis  divinity,  to  refuse  to  him  all  divine  lionouis,  and  to  regard 
and  treat  him  only  as  a  mci'e  creature?  If,  though  he  thought 
it  no  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,  yet  for  tlie  salvation  of 
lapsed  and  lost  mankind,  he  came  down  from  heaven,  took 
upon  iiim  the  form  of  a  servant,  w  as  made  in  tlie  likeness  of 
men,  and  became  obedient  unto  death  even  the  death  of  the 
cross,  as  an  offering  and  sacrifice,  for  the  sins  of  the  world; 
is  it  a  light  thing  to  deny  this  doctrine  of  atonement, — refuse 
to  acknowledge  that  stupendous  display  of  divine  wisdom,  con- 
descension and  love  which  it  reve?Js,  w  hich  the  inspired  w  riters 
celebrate  in  the  most  exalted  strains  of  gratitude  and  i)raise, 
and  to  which  all  the  multitude  of  saints  before  tlie  throne  of 
God  and  the  Lamb,  ascribe  their  redemption  from  eternal  per- 
dition to  immortal  life  and  glory!     If  Jesus  Christ  crucified 

*  Let  me  not  be  understoofl  to  speak  in  any  disparagement  of  fair  and  legiti- 
mate biblicul  criticism.  I  honour  tlie  labotifs  of  Kennicott,  l)c  Kossi,  Midiaelis, 
Griesbach,  Lowth,  and  many  others  who  have  distiugiiisheil  themselves  in  this 
useful  field.  It  is  such  criticism  only,  as  has  foi'  its  object  to  mutilate,  and  e.v- 
plain  away  tlie  scriptures,  and  to  shape  their  doctrines  in  accoraniudatioit  to 
Jiiurtan  feelings  and  views,  that  I  mean  to  reprobate. 


39 

is  the  only  foundation  of  good  hope  to  men;  if  there  is  no 
other  name  hy  which  men  must  or  can  be  saved;  if  forgive- 
ness of  sin  and  justification  unto  life  can  be  obtained,  only 
through  the  merits  of  his  sacrifice,  and  by  faith  in  his  blood; 
is  it  a  light  tiling  to  reject  this  doctrine,  to  refuse  this  way 
of  pardon  and  of  life,  and  to  trust  for  acceptance  with  God 
and  everlasting  happiness,  on  any  other  ground? 

Suppose  a  church  founded  on  tliese  doctrines,  in  the  act  of 
celebrating  the  death  of  the  Lord  Jesus  at  his  table.  They 
unite  in  worsliipping  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit;  in 
adoring  Christ  as  their  almighty  Saviour,  and  gratefully 
ascribing  tiie  forgiveness  of  tlieir  sins,  their  acceptance 
with  God,  and  all  theii-  immortal  hopes  entirely  to  his  propi- 
tiatory sacrifice;  and  in  devoutly  acknowledging  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  their  Sanctifier  and  Comforter,  and  praising  Him 
as  the  efficient  Producer  in  tlieni  of  all  holy  affections  and 
consolations.  Can  a  Unitarian,  who  denies  all  these  doc- 
trines, have  communion  with  the  church  in  this  solemn  and 
interesting  scene.  Must  it  not  be  to  him  a  scene  of  abomin- 
able idolatry;  a  most  delusive  and  flagitious  perversion  of  the 
sacred  institution? — In  regard  to  the  whole,  the  doctrines  and 
the  worsiiip  founded  upon  it,  is  he  not  an  unbeliever? 

Let  us  change  the  scene.  Suppose  a  church  of  Unitari- 
ans, (say,  if  you  please,  low  Unitarians)  at  the  table  of  the 
holy  sapper.  They  refuse  to  worship  t!ie  Son  and  the  Holy 
Ghost:  they  deny  the  divinity  and  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  remember  him  only  as  a  good  man,  who  "suffered  and 
died  in  tlie  best  of  causes,"  but  "in  the  occasion  and  manner 
of  whose  death  there  was  nothing  very  different  from  that  of 
others  who  suffered  and  died  after  him  in  the  same  cause;'* 
and  they  professedly  rely  for  eternal  life,  not  on  the  Sav- 
iom's  merits,  but  on  their  own  "good  moral  lives,"  and  de- 
clare, "tiiat  all  hopes  founded  on  any  thing  else  are  merely 
imaginary."  ^^'hat  has  an  ortliodox  christian  to  do  with 
such  a  communion?  Can  he  join  in  divesting  his  adored 
Saviour  of  his  glory, — in  profaning  his  institution, — making 
**Ms  blood  an  unholy  thing!" 

V,  e  assume,  we  claim  no  dictation,  no  controul  over  other 
men's  consciences.     We  invade  not,  we  wish  not  to  invade 


40 

av  to  abridge  the  nalui-al,  civil,  or  religious  rights  of  a)iy 
man  or  class  of  men.  Wc  rejoice  in  the  ci^  il,  and  still  more 
in  the  religious  freedom  of  our  country.  We  acknowledge 
the  i-ight  of  every  one  to  think  for  himself,  and  to  form  his 
own  opinions  of  trutli;  a  I'ight,  however,  for  the  unperverted 
exercise  of  which  every  one  is  solemnly  accountable  to  God. 

While  we  allow  this  right  to  others,  and  claim  it  for  our- 
flclves,  we  hold  it  to  be  perfectly  consistent,  and  our  bounden 
duty,  openly  and  faithfully  to  declare  and  inculcate  what  we 
believe  to  be  divine  truth;  firmly  and  earnestly,  yet  candidly 
and  benevolently,  to  contend  for  Avhat  we  receive  as  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints:  and  to  employ  all  scrip- 
tural means  to  counteract  and  explode  such  opinions  as  we 
deem  erroneous, — such,  especially,  as  we  believe  to  be  utterly 
subversive  of  tlie  gospel;  and  to  convince  and  warn  all  peo- 
ple, of  their  delusive  nature  and  their  destructive  tendency. 
And  ive  think  it  neither  charitable  nor  reasonable^ — we  hold  it, 
indeed,  entirely  incompatible  with  our  liberty  of  conscience,  and 
our  right  of  private  judgment,  that  we  should  be  reqmred  to 
think  favourably  of  such  opinions,  to  refrain  from  bearing  our 
testimony  against  them,  ov  to  regard  them  as  no  obstruction  ta 
christian  fellowship. 

Wc  are  not  so  happy  as  to  have  the  belief,  wliich  you  so 
confidently  express,  that,  "the  great  principles,  for  which 
the  apostles  contended,  are  now  received  with  little  dispute 
in  christian  communities."  We  "sincerely  believe"  on  the 
contrary,  that  those  doctrines  were  the  very  same,  for  which 
we  arc  now  contending.  We  believe  that  the  Gospel  of  John 
and  his  first  and  second  Epistles,  all  which  were  written  af- 
ter controversies  arose  among  professed  christians,  concern- 
ing the  person  and  character  of  Jesus  Christ,  had  particular 
respect  to  those  controversies;  and  were  particularly  design- 
ed to  establish  the  faith  of  the  churches,  in  both  his  true  Di- 
vinity and  humanity.  We  believe  that  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
to  tlie  Romans  and  Galatians,  had  for  their  primary  and 
princii)lc  object,  the  vindication  and  establishnuMit  of  the  car- 
dinal docti'ine  of  justification,  "freely  by  grace  through  the 
redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus;  whom  God  hath  set  forth 
to  he  a  propitiation,  tlirough  faith  in  his  blood;"  in  opposi- 


41 

tion  to  such  pvofessed  christians  as  denied  this  doctrine,  and 
«went  about  to  establish  their  own  righteousnessj"  and  that 
the  diviiie  dignity,  the  high  priesthood  and  expiatory  sacri- 
fice of"  Christ,  and  salvation  only  through  his  one  offering 
for  sin,  and  by  faith  in  him,  constitute  the  subject  of  his  en- 
tire Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  "We  believe,  in  a  word,  that 
these  are  the  very  doctrines  of  the  crosSf  which  were  "to 

THE     JEWS     A     STUMBLING    BLOCK,    AND    TO    THE     GREEKS 

FOOLISHNESS^"  and  we  deeply  deplore  the  affecting  fact,  of 
which  we  see  most  abundant  evidence,  that  there  is,  in  our 
own  age,  and  in  our  own  country,  tlse  same  spirit  of  lujstility 
to  these  doctrines,  which  was  so  awfully  and  fattdly  display- 
ed in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  With  deep  impressions,  and 
the  most  painful  emotions,  we  remember  the  solemn  word, 
t^Unto  them  tvhich  be  disohedient^  the  stone  which  the  builders 
disallowed^  the  same  is  made  the  head  of  the  corner,  and  a 
stone  of  stumbling,  and  a  rock  of  offence,  even  to  them  which 
stumble  at  tJie  word,  being  disobedient." 

The  event  of  the  present  controversy,  I  would  submissive- 
ly leave  with  Him,  whose  truth,  and  whose  glory  are  deeply 
concerned  in  it.  Most  deeply  do  I  lament  the  uncommon 
animosities  which  liave  been  excited,  and  the  uncommon 
manner  in  wliich  they  have  been  displayed.  True,  it  has 
always  been  the  fart,  that  when  errour  has  been  exposed,  the 
passions  which  have  clung  to  it  have  been  disturbed^  but  it 
most  solemnly  concerns  us  all,  on  the  one  side  and  on  the 
other,  to  look  well  to  our  tempers,  to  our  words,  and  to  our 
actions, — remembering  that  we  are  erelong  to  stand  together 
before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ.  Notwithstanding,  how- 
ever, the  present  excitement,  and  the  heavy  guilt  incurred  by 
many,  it  is  devoutly  to  be  hoped  that  shortly  the  passions  of 
the  day  will  subside,  and  give  place  t«  serious  reflection 
and  candid  inquiry;  that  people  will  consider  the  questions 
in  debate,  as  being  of  a  nature  too  momentous,  to  be  hastily 
decided  by  private  attachments  or  antipathies,  by  party  spir- 
it or  prejudice — by  any  thing  indeed  other  than  reason  and 
conscience  and  scriptrre;  and  will  attend  to  these  questions, 
with  all  the  earnestness  which  their  everlasting  impoi'tanGe 
6 


4.Z 

demands,  with  humble  dependence  on  the  Spirit  of  grace, 
and  with  sincere  and  unl'ailing  desires  to  know  and  obey  the 
truth. 

With  fervent  prayers  for  a  consummation  so  happy,  and 
for  your  joy  as  well  as  my  own  in  the  event,  I  am. 
Rev.  and  dear  Sir, 
Yours,  with  sincere  affection  and  respect, 

S.  WORCESTER. 
Salem,  Jingiisl  £6,  1815. 


POSTSCRIPT. 

Dr.  Watts,  in  the  preface  to  his  Glory  of  Christ,  one  of  his 
latest  publications,  says,  **Though  we  learn  from  Sci'ipture 
that  TRUE  AND  PROPER  DEITY  is  ascribed  to  the  father, 
THE  SON,  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT,  an<)  they  are  represented 
often  in  srri]>turc  as  distinct  personal  agents;  yet  after  all  our 
inquiries  and  prayers,  we  may  be  still  much  at  a  loss  to  de- 
scribe exactly,  wherein  this  distinct  personality  consists,  and 
what  is  the  distinct  communion  of  each  of  them  in  tlie  divine 
nature.'* — «I  can  assure  them  [his  readers]  that  there  is  not 
one  sentence  in  all  these  discourses,  but  what  is  very  consist- 
ent with  a  firm  belief  of  the  dixinity  of  Christy  and  a  just 
and  sincere  concern  for  tlie  most  eminent  and  glorious  trutlis 
of  the  gospel,  as  they  are  professed  by  Protestants  among  us 
against  the  Socinian  and  Avian  erroiirs.^' — In  these  views,  so 
far  as  appears.  Dr.  Watts  remained  to  the  last. 

Respecting  Dr.  Barnard,  I  have  oidy  to  reaffirm  what  I 
said  before. 

A  pamphlet  by  a  Layman  has  come  to  hand,  just  in  season 
to  receive  as  much  attention  as  it  seems  to  require.  The 
pamphlet  bears  this  title,  '-Are  you  a  Christian  or  a  Calvinist? 
Or,  Do  you  prefer  the  authority  of  Chnst  to  that  of  the  Genevan 
Reformci-?*'  Whatever  in  this  publication  concerns  me,  and 
the  cause  whicli  I  have  espoused,  has  been  almost  entirely 
anticipated,  and,  as  I  believe,  suflieiently  answered,  in  th« 
foregoing  Letter. 

The  title,  the  spirit,  the  wliole  tenour,  import  that  Calvin- 
ists  are  not  Christians.     I  am  not  in  the  least  angered  by 


this;  nor  do  I  apprehend  that  any  of  my  brethren  implicated^ 
will  think  that  they  would  do  well  to  be  angry,  or  will  feel 
themselves  called  upon  to  express,  even  «*a  virtuous  indigna- 
tion.'* If  the  Layman  and  his  party  really  believe  that  Cal- 
vinists  ai"e  not  christians,  they  liave  my  full  and  most  hearty 
consent  to  declare  it  with  the  utmost  freedom;  nor  will  I  con- 
tend with  them  at  all  about  their  consistency  in  claiming  to 
he  thought  most  charitable,  in  entertaining  and  expressing 
this  opinion,  and  in  continually  denouncing  us  as  being  ut- 
terly devoid  of  charity. 

«<I  expect,"  says  this  unknown  writer,  the  "intolerant  among 
the  disciples  of  Calvin  will  be  ready  to  consign  a  layman  to  the 
fate  of  *unregenerale  rejirobateSf*  who  sliall  dare 'to  intermeddle 
with  tlie  sacred  mysteries  of  their  faitli."  The  gentleman,  I 
believe,  need  give  himself  no  concern  on  this  score.  <«Their 
master,"  he  proceeds  to  say,  "woidd  never  suffer  any  one 
to  question  his  doctrines  under  pain  of  tlie  fagot.  He  wished 
to  dethrone  the  Pope,  only  that  he  might  put  the  tiara  on  liis 
own  head.  His  disciples  in  this  countiy,  and  in  this  alone, 
retain  the  same  spirit." — These  are  tlie  first  sentences.  To 
these  I  will  add  a  quotation  from  the  6t]i  page.  "The  orthodox 
believe  in  Calvin  and  the  Westminster  Assembly;  the  liberal 
christians  in  Christ  and  his  apostles.  The  former  are  Calviii- 
ists — the  latter  are  christians.  Yet  so  intolerant  and  unrea- 
sonable are  the  party  who  have  arrogated  to  themselves  the 
title  of  orthodox,  that  they  venture  to  deny  the  name  and  title 
of  christians  to  the  followers  of  Christ,  and  apply  it  exclu- 
sively to  the  foliowei's  of  Calvin,  and  of  human  councils,  as- 
semblies, and  creed-makers."  Those  wlio  have  not  the  op- 
portunity or  inclination  to  read  the  pamphlet,  may  rely  on 
these  quotations,  not  only  as  a  fair  speciaien,  but  as  contain- 
ing the  sum  and  substance,  the  pitl^nd  marrow  of  the  whole. 
Such  is  tlie  "document"  which  this^riter  is  careful  to  let  us 
know  it  was  his  intention  «*to  furnish"  to  be  deposited  in  the 
archives  "of  our  historical  societies  and  the  alcoves  of  our 
colleges:"  a  monument  more  durable  than  brass,  to  proclaim 
and  exemplify  to  the  generations  to  come,  the  talent  and  taste, 
the  ti'uth  and  argument,  the  corrcctaess  and  wisdom,  the  dig- 
nity and  urbanity,  tlie  meekness  and  modesty,  t)ie  candour  and 


44 

cliai'ity  of  the  liberal  men  of  Massachusetts  «in  the  beginning 
of  the  nineteenth  century." 

The  Layman  states,  or  intimates,  more  than  once,  that  I 
deny,  and  endeavour  to  prove,  that  the  Reviewer  did  not 
charge  the  liberal  clergy  and  party  with  "hypocritical  con- 
cealment;" and  upon  tliis  he  bestows  many  words.  I  said, 
however,  explicitJy,  «I  mean  not  to  deny  that  the  Reviewer 
does  charge  ministers,  and  perhaps  others,  of  the  party  called 
liberal,  with  want  of  openness  and  clearness  j  nay,  with  design- 
ed concealment  and  culpable  disguise." 

P.  12.  the  Layman  says,  **We  agi'ce  with  Dr.  "Worcester, 
and  we  are  happy  to  agree  with  him  in  some  points,  that 
south  of  Mas'saiTliusetts  there  is  very  little  freedom  of  reli- 
gious opinioi?;^  •^Aon.'must  think  as  they  are  bid,  not  as  they 
believe."  How  the  gentleman  came  to  know  this  to  be  my 
opinion,  I  w  ill  not  attempt  to  divine;  but  sure  I  am,  he  can 
find  not  the  slightest  intimation  of  any  thing  of  this  sort,  not 
the  most  distant  reference  to  the  people  south  of  Massachu- 
setts in  my  Letter. 

For  an  answer  to  the  main  scope  and  argument  of  his 
pamphlet,  I  beg  leave  to  refer  the  Layman  to  pp.  11 — 14, 
22 — 25,  and  28 — 39  of  tbe  foregoing  Letter. 

What  is  principally  to  be  apprehended  by  me  and  my  breth- 
ren, of  danger  to  ourselves  and  our  cause  from  the  Layman's 
attempt  is,  that  we  shall  not  duly  remember,  that  ^'charity 
rejoiceth  not  in  iniquity;  but  rejoicetk  in  the  truths*  Me  have 
strong  temptation  to  rtjoice  in  this  publication.  This  shower 
of  "poisoned  arrows"  has  not  reached  us.  I  confess,  however, 
I  like  the  Layman's  openness.  lie  conceals  neither  his 
sentiments,  nor  liis  sjiHrit,  liis  party  prejudices  nor  his  private 
enmities,  his  desigi^  nor  his  resoui'ces; — nothing  but  his 
name.  '*   ^ 

w  ^ 

"Alack;  'tis  he!  why  he  was  ngJI  even  now 
"As  mad  as  the  vex'd  sea:  singing  aloud; 
"Crowu'd  with  rank  fumitei-,  and  fiirrow^  weeds, 
"Wiih  hailocks,  hemlock,  nellies,  cucko-flower, 
"Darnel,  and  atl  the  idle  weeds  that  grow 
"In  our  sustaining  corn. 

•— «        —       jryat  close  aspeot  of  his 
"Does  shew  ths  mood  of  a  much  ti'oublcd  breast.'* 


f 


